scope-analyst

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds context about what the tool does (catch ambiguities) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like error handling or synchrony. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 sentences: first defines purpose, second gives usage guidance. No fluff, front-loaded, every word earns its place.

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?

Given six parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description lacks detail about return values and parameter usage. It does not explain how to interpret the tool's output or configure inputs beyond the bare minimum.

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 0% and the description provides no information about the 6 parameters. Only 'prompt' is somewhat self-explanatory; others like 'expert', 'developerInstructions', 'cwd', 'reasoningEffort', and 'files' remain unclear.

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's role as a 'Pre-planning consultant' that 'catches ambiguities, hidden requirements, and pitfalls before planning begins.' This specific verb and resource differentiate it from sibling tools like 'analyze' or 'architect'.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use when a request is vague or could be interpreted multiple ways.' While it does not list when not to use or alternatives, the condition is clear and actionable.

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