get_editor_scope

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what is returned without disclosing any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description lacks sufficient behavioral context for a tool with zero annotations.

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 one sentence with a parenthetical note, making it very concise. It is front-loaded with the main information. However, the parenthetical '(Make Bracket Online)' is slightly unclear and may be extraneous.

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 the tool has zero parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate in stating what is returned. However, it lacks details on the format or structure of the output, which would improve completeness. It is minimally sufficient but not thorough.

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 schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, and by baseline for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. It adds no extra parameter semantics, which is acceptable.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'editor workflow' and 'documented limits on local processing or export'. This clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_official_links', which likely returns links.

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 the tool is used to retrieve editor workflow and limits but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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