get_editor_scope

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation returning data, which is safe. But it lacks details on potential side effects, rate limits, or response size. Minimal but acceptable.

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?

Single sentence with parenthetical is concise. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., separate sentences for workflow and limits). Still efficient.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but sparse. It names what is returned but not the format or structure. Could be more complete for agent understanding.

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?

No parameters in schema, description adds no parameter info as none exist. Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields baseline 4. No need for further param detail.

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 it returns 'editor workflow and documented limits', which is a specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_official_links' by focusing on editor internals vs 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 usage context is clear: to retrieve editor workflow and limits. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are provided. Sibling tool is distinct enough that no exclusion is needed.

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