avanan_list_scopes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries behavior disclosure itself: it is a read-only listing, and it explains how scope count differs by key type (one for customer keys, one per managed tenant for MSP keys). It doesn't mention error cases or response shape, but for a list tool this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences; the key statement is front-loaded and every clause adds meaning. No fluff or schema repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, list-style tool it is reasonably complete: no inputs to documentaineagu, and it explains cardinality and downstream usability. It leaves the exact output items unspecified, but the output schema is also absent, so the description provides most of what an agent needs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic context by defining what a scope is and how the scopes relate to downstream event/search/action tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the farm:tenant scopes'), and immediately distinguishes this from sibling tools by clarifying it returns query scopes, not tenants or partners. The customer-tenant vs MSP distinction removes ambiguity about what an agent will get.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains that scopes are what the key can query and that they feed into the event, search and action tools, which tells an agent when to call this tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this before other queries,' but the context is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.