get_scope

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: read-only assertion, the immutability guarantee (read from a file at startup, not mutable via MCP), the data source, and cost/quota/latency profile ('free, no quota, instant'). That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before deciding to spend a call.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, contents, sequencing directive, safety/immutability, cost. The imperative 'CALL THIS FIRST.' sits directly after the purpose statement rather than buried at the end.

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 return-value detail need not be restated, and the description still covers purpose, sequencing, and safety. For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description's list of returned fields is partly redundant with the existing output schema, but it does help the agent decide whether the call is worth making, and there is nothing else parameter-wise to document.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the authorization scope this server enforces') and enumerates the concrete contents returned: allowed/denied domains and IP ranges, expiry date, budget limits. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_budget, which covers only one of those facets.

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?

'CALL THIS FIRST.' is explicit sequencing guidance that no sibling supplies, and the note that the scope 'cannot be changed from an MCP session' tells the agent not to bother trying to mutate it. It stops short of naming when an agent could safely skip this call, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not coverage.

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