explain_scope

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the data-exclusion rule ("No prompt text, document bodies, or secrets") and failure semantics ("A failed stamp sets failure_class and does not invent entity types"). These are useful disclosures the annotations do not carry.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the remainder is a series of telegraphic fragments ("Entity types, display fields, text-search fields...", "fetch_chat_request stays template only.") that read like clipped notes rather than structured guidance. Every line is short, but the choppy phrasing reduces clarity and cohesion.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers what the summary contains, what is excluded, and how failures are signaled. For a zero-parameter introspection tool with rich annotations, that is close to sufficient, though the missing usage context leaves a small gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description's enumeration of entity types, fields, and verbs describes the output scope rather than inputs, which is not a parameter 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?

States a verb ("Summarize") and a resource ("the live chat_request stamp on public :8080"), so the basic purpose is present. However, the terminology is opaque domain jargon — "chat_request stamp", "public :8080" — with no plain-language framing of what the summary is for, and no reference to any sibling. An agent gets a rough idea but not a crisp purpose.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool named. The only indirect constraint is "fetch_chat_request stays template only", which hints at a scope boundary but does not tell the agent when this tool should be selected over its many siblings.

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