validate_scope_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It describes what is validated but omits critical behavioral details: whether it is read-only, what happens on violation (return value, error, side effects), and performance implications. This is insufficient for an agent to predict outcomes.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and scope. Every word adds value, no redundancy or filler. Well-structured for quick parsing.

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 nested objects and validation complexity, the description covers the 'what' but not the 'how' (output format, error handling). Missing output schema means agents need to guess return structure. Adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds overall context but no new parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters.

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 verifies compliance of an agent action with its scope contract, listing specific checks (tool allowlists, file paths, boundary constraints). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like health_check or scan_mcp_config which focus on different security aspects.

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 implies usage for validation but does not explicitly state when or when not to use it. It contrasts with siblings only implicitly through purpose. No guidance on prerequisites or alternative tools.

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