scope_help

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool is for documentation lookup and mentions 'Transport: local', implying no network side effects. It does not explicitly mention that it is read-only or non-destructive, but the behavior is clearly a safe retrieval operation.

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 at three lines plus an Args section and transport line. Every sentence adds value, and key information is front-loaded. No redundant or filler content.

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 help tool, the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, parameter usage with examples, and transport. With an output schema present (though not shown), the description is sufficiently complete for an AI to invoke correctly.

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 single parameter 'topic' is fully documented in the description: default behavior (empty to list all), and the list of valid values. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only provides a default and type.

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's purpose: 'Look up LeCroy SCPI documentation by topic.' It identifies the resource (documentation) and differentiates from sibling tools which are mostly control/measurement functions. The list of available topics provides specific context.

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 explains when to call with no argument to list all topics and provides the list of valid topics. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, the usage is straightforward for a help tool and the context is sufficient.

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