suggest_query_scope

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the core action, such as return format, side effects, whether credentials are required, or if it makes external calls. The agent has no idea what to expect of the tool's behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes parenthetical clarification. No wasted words or repetition, perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how the suggestion is returned or how the agent should use it in subsequent queries. Given the tool's purpose to guide scope selection, a brief note on output or usage flow would make it contextually 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?

The single parameter resource_type is fully described in the schema ('Type of resource (vms, networks, disks, etc.)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, just connects it to 'resource queries'. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb ('Suggest') and resource ('scope for resource queries'), explicitly listing the scope types (folder/cloud/organization). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are list/get operations.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many list/get siblings. It doesn't mention that it should be used to determine scope before running resource queries, nor any prerequisites like credentials. The description only states functionality, not usage context.

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