check_in_scope

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the response shape ('every matching scope entry plus the program's exclusions as caveats'), which tells the agent exclusions arrive as caveats rather than verdicts. However, it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or how a non-matching asset is represented.

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?

Two compact sentences with the decision purpose front-loaded and the return behavior second. No filler or repetition.

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 explaining return values is a bonus rather than a necessity, and the description still notes the caveats structure. The main gap is the undocumented 'handle' parameter, which the description does not resolve.

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% for both parameters. The description compensates partially by defining the accepted 'asset' forms (host, URL, IP, CIDR), but the 'handle' parameter is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so the agent must guess what identifies the program.

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+resource ('Decide whether an asset ... is covered by a program's structured scope') and enumerates the accepted asset forms (host, URL, IP, CIDR). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_structured_scopes or get_scope_exclusions, which list rather than evaluate a specific asset.

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 purpose implies the usage scenario (evaluating one asset against a program's scope), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as get_structured_scopes or get_scope_exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the per-asset membership check.

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