get_scope_exclusions

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 implies a read-only lookup but says nothing about permissions, whether results are program-specific, rate limits, or freshness. With an output schema present, return-shape disclosure is not required, but the remaining behavioral context is thin.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical clarifying 'out-of-scope classes' is the only elaboration, and it earns its place; nothing is wasted, though there is very little content overall.

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?

With one parameter and a present output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient: it says what is returned. However, it omits what 'handle' identifies and how this list differs from the scope data returned by get_structured_scopes, leaving a genuine routing gap for an agent.

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 coverage is 0% and the sole parameter 'handle' is never mentioned in the description. The agent must infer that handle means a program handle and how it relates to the exclusions returned. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific resource and scope: categories excluded from rewards (out-of-scope classes). The verb 'Report' is slightly odd for a getter, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_structured_scopes or check_in_scope, but the purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent reading this cannot tell whether to call it instead of get_structured_scopes or check_in_scope, which is exactly the confusion this tool needs to resolve.

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