list_scopes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral detail: the tool is a read ('List'), returns a count plus raw records, and maps to GET /openapi/v1/app_scopes. It does not state whether the list is paginated, complete, or what permissions/authentication are required, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its meaning, followed by return shape and usage context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values, though it helpfully summarizes them. For a zero-parameter read tool this covers purpose, usage, and output. Pagination and completeness of the listing are the only minor omissions.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List the CSW scopes') and defines the resource's role ('the hierarchy that organizes workloads and policy'), so an agent can tell it is enumerating cluster segmentation structures. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_workspaces or list_sensors, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Use this to understand how the cluster is segmented before drilling in' supplies a clear usage context and sequencing hint. However, no alternative tool is named and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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