list_scopes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds beyond that by explicitly saying 'Read-only, no input' and by disclosing the structure of what will be returned (shared scopes, per-project scopes, and counts), which gives the agent useful behavioral expectations.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('List the knowledge scopes this server holds') and then packs every remaining clause with useful detail: scope composition, counts, read-only nature, and downstream usage. There is no filler.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and annotations already covering idempotence/read-only behavior, the description is fully adequate. It explains what is returned, how to use it, and why it matters for sibling tools, leaving no important gap for an agent invoking it.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by stating 'no input,' which is useful confirmation even though the empty schema already implies it. No further parameter documentation is needed.

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 names a specific resource ('knowledge scopes'), spells out exactly what it lists (shared 'domain'/'conventions' scopes plus 'projects/<name>' scopes), and mentions the accompanying counts. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_context and compile_bundle, which operate on scopes rather than listing them.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use it to discover the project scope to pass to search_context or compile_bundle.' It also explains a key behavioral consequence of those downstream tools—they search only shared scopes by default—which tells an agent why listing scopes first matters.

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