api_keys_scopes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait — 'Only scopes the user already holds are returned' — which is important for the agent to avoid expecting all possible scopes. It also reveals grouping by category. This is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond what any schema would show.

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, zero waste. The first sentence states the core action and grouping; the second adds the scoping constraint and a usage rationale. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what it lists, the grouping, the user-scoping filter, and a practical use case. There's nothing material left unexplained given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline for a zero-param tool is 4. The description correctly focuses on the output semantics instead, which 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 'List all permission scopes available to the current user, grouped by category' — specific verb (list), resource (permission scopes), and scope (available to current user). It distinguishes from the sibling oauth2_clients_scopes by noting both the grouping by category and the user-relative nature.

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 provides clear use context — 'useful for inspecting what permissions a token can be granted' — telling the agent when it would be appropriate to call this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., oauth2_clients_scopes for OAuth client scopes), so it's clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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