Expand scope variables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses 'recursively' and 'bounded' but fails to explain the nature of these bounds (e.g., depth, maxProperties), what happens when they are exceeded, whether the operation is read-only, or the structure of the returned graph. This adds minimal behavioral context beyond what parameter names suggest.

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 a single, well-formed sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and economically conveys the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise.

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 a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence summary is insufficient. It omits essential context such as the return value shape, how depth and maxProperties interact, the role of targetSessionId, and any error conditions. The description is too sparse to be considered complete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only references 'object ID', which maps to objectId, but depth, maxProperties, sessionId, and targetSessionId are entirely unaddressed. The description fails to clarify their meaning, leaving most parameters ambiguous and the tool difficult to invoke correctly.

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 'recursively expand' and identifies the resource as a 'bounded Runtime object graph' from an object ID, which clearly conveys the action. The title 'Expand scope variables' reinforces this purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_object_properties, but the recursive and bounded nature implies a more thorough introspection, setting it apart from simpler tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_object_properties or debugger_evaluate. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts. The name 'enhanced' hints at a superset capability, but no explicit direction is given.

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