intigriti_get_program_scope

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description mentions what is returned, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, potential errors, or any side effects. It adds some value by specifying scope content, but lacks deeper 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 two sentences, directly states the tool's purpose and output, and contains no redundant or fluff content. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 is simple with one required parameter and no output schema. The description covers the tool's purpose, identifies the parameter, and gives examples of returns. It is adequate but could mention if any authentication or specific conditions are needed, though this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 already explains program_id as 'The unique identifier of the program' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the role of program_id by stating 'for a specific program', but does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves scope assets (in-scope and out-of-scope) for a specific program, with concrete examples of returned data (endpoints, domains, applications). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_programs or get_program, which serve different purposes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only describes the action without contextual guidance, leaving the agent to infer that this is for scope-related queries.

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