scope-analyst

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

Disclosed behaviors include 'fans out to configured provider panel', 'advisory persona', 'each provider needs its key/CLI, rate limits apply', and 'returns text-wrapped JSON envelope { results[] }'. This adds context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) without contradiction.

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 only: first sentence states purpose and use condition, second explains behavior and output. Front-loaded, no redundancy, every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description covers the return envelope shape. It also mentions provider dependencies. However, the structure of results[] is not detailed, but acceptable given the tool's advisory role.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning or usage guidance for individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 is a 'pre-planning consultant' that 'catches ambiguities, hidden requirements, and pitfalls before planning begins.' It specifies when to use ('vague or could be interpreted multiple ways'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like architect or plan-reviewer.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use when a request is vague or could be interpreted multiple ways.' Provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternative sibling tools.

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