h1_get_program_scopes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' and gives no information about pagination, filtering, output format, or side effects. The schema reveals pagination and filter parameters, but the description omits any behavioral context.

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?

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. For a tool with six parameters and no annotations, a single vague sentence does not earn its place; it is insufficiently informative.

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?

The tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, making it moderately complex. The description provides virtually no context about return values, pagination behavior, or how filters interact. It is far from complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 17% (only program_handle has a description). The description does not explain any parameters or add meaning beyond the schema. With such low coverage, the description must compensate but fails to do so, leaving page_size, page_number, created_after, updated_after, and id_greater_than unexplained.

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?

The description 'List structured scopes' identifies a verb (list) and a resource (scopes), but 'structured scopes' is vague and does not specify that they are program scopes or what 'structured' implies. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like h1_get_scope_exclusions, which likely relate to program scope as well.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as h1_get_scope_exclusions or h1_get_program. The description does not mention required program_handle context or any exclusions, leaving the agent without information on appropriate use cases.

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