list_scope_entities

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains a domain rule ('a command naming an entity outside it is rejected') but does not describe the tool's own behavior: that it lists entities, is read-only, or the nature of its return. The read-only nature is only implied by the name, not stated.

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 short but poorly structured: it begins with a noun ('Entities') rather than a verb, making the purpose less immediate. The two sentences contain relevant information but could be rephrased for clarity. It is not overly verbose, but the format is suboptimal.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, including one required), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, although the output schema exists, but it also fails to clarify parameter usage or selection context. The description leaves an agent guessing about basic invocation requirements.

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%. The description gives a hint about the 'scope' parameter by stating scope is 'activity' or 'macro', but does not explicitly map it to the parameter. The required scope_id and the host parameter are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to provide.

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 states the resource ('entities an activity or macro is currently allowed to use') but lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'. It does distinguish from add_scope_entities and remove_scope_entities by focusing on what is 'currently allowed', but the fragment structure leaves ambiguity about the action.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the add/remove siblings. The description mentions that 'both keep their own list', but does not explain that this tool is the read-only counterpart or when to select it over others.

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