owp_scope_validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does well by stating 'This read-only tool does not accept a ledger, private key, or signature instruction.' This discloses side-effect-free behavior and input constraints. It does not detail validation result behavior, but an output schema is present.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a useful constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a one-parameter validation tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, read-only behavior, and the authority-checking boundary. It could add a sibling-tool comparison or explicit return semantics, but the output schema reduces that need.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description only adds that the scope is 'v0.3' and that no ledger/key/signature inputs are involved. It leaves the meaning of scope_json mostly to the property name and type. The description partially compensates but does not fully explain the expected JSON structure or validation rules.

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 uses a specific verb and object: 'Intrinsically validate a v0.3 scope.' It also distinguishes this from authority-checking operations by stating 'without checking authority.' The term 'intrinsically' is somewhat underdefined, but the core purpose is clear and differentiated from sibling tools like owp_scope_compare.

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 clearly excludes authority-checking use cases: 'Full Manager authority is checked only by the non-MCP commit boundary.' It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative to use instead, but it gives a clear boundary for when this tool is not appropriate.

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