Program Scope Fetch

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

The description says it writes to an output file, which is a side effect, yet the annotation `readOnlyHint: true` indicates the tool is read-only. This is a direct contradiction, and the description does not reconcile it or disclose other potential side effects like network access or file creation.

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 concise, using only a few sentences, and each sentence adds meaningful information: what it does, how it does it, and a critical warning. No unnecessary repetition or verbosity.

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?

For a simple fetch-and-write tool it covers the core action and the caution about validation, but it leaves `researcher_handle` unexplained and does not address the contradictory read-only annotation. It also does not mention return values or error conditions, though an output schema may partially cover that.

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?

It clarifies that `program` is a HackerOne handle or policy URL, and notes the default for `out`. However, `researcher_handle` is not explained at all, and the schema itself has no descriptions, so coverage is partial.

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 tool fetches a bug bounty program's published scope and writes it to a scaffold file, with explicit mention of extracting in-scope and out-of-scope domains. The verb 'fetch' and resource 'scope' are 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?

It provides a caution that the output is not a finished authorization and references `cordon scope validate`, but it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The guidance is implicit rather than direct.

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