get_scopes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation through 'List', but does not explain whether traversal is recursive, how deep it goes, what the default root behavior is, or what the result looks like. For a hierarchy-listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the vagueness noted in other dimensions.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to explain return shape and traversal behavior. It does not clarify whether child scopes are returned as a flat list or tree, how deep the hierarchy goes, or how this relates to the simulation session lifecycle implied by other sibling tools.

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%, so the parent parameter is already documented in the schema, including its default of '/'. The description adds no additional meaning about how parent selects the hierarchy root or whether results are relative to it, leaving the schema to do all the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List child scopes (hierarchy) in the simulation.' However, 'scopes' is vague, and the tool is not distinguished from nearby siblings like get_design_hierarchy or get_simulation_objects. An agent can infer the general purpose but not precisely how this differs from those alternatives.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_design_hierarchy or get_simulation_objects. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing this tool are provided.

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