get_scope_at_cursor

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation returning a string, but does not disclose error handling, performance implications, or special cases (e.g., empty cursor). While adequate for a simple retrieval, it omits behavioral details that could impact agent decision-making.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. Every word is necessary, meeting the standard for conciseness.

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 and no parameters, the description adequately explains what the tool does. However, it lacks details on the string's format or potential edge cases, which could be important for an agent interpreting the result. Still, for a simple getter, it is largely complete.

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?

There are no parameters; schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying that the output is a 'full syntax scope string', which clarifies what the tool returns beyond the schema's lack of detail. Given no parameters, this is well-handled.

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 verb 'return', the resource 'full syntax scope string', and the location 'at the cursor position'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_word_at_cursor or get_cursor_context by specifying the exact scope information retrieved.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_cursor_context or get_selection. The description lacks any context or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection among many similar get_* siblings.

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