explain_scope

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: no prompt text, document bodies, or secrets are exposed; fetch_chat_request remains template-only; missing_mini_schema is preserved; and a failed stamp sets failure_class rather than inventing entity types. This adds useful operational context, though it does not cover auth or rate-limit constraints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and the details are relevant, but it is dense with implementation-specific terms and several conditional clauses. It would benefit from clearer separation between what the tool returns and fallback behavior.

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?

The tool is parameterless, has rich annotations, and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return format. It still covers key edge cases around missing mini-schema headings and failed stamps. The main gap is the lack of explicit usage context relative to sibling diagnostic tools.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a meaningful differentiator. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusing parameter expectations.

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 action and resource: summarize the live chat_request stamp, including entity types, display/text-search/foreign-key fields, and verbs. It is not a tautology. However, it does not differentiate this tool from any of its siblings, and the term 'stamp' remains domain jargon rather than plain language.

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 gives no guidance on when an agent should call explain_scope versus alternatives such as doctor, readiness_check, or diagnose_error. Its conditional details are about fallback parsing behavior, not about tool selection or prerequisites.

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