get_scopes

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It reveals required debug state (STOPPED), needed prior call (get_call_stack), and the return value's role (variables_reference for get_variables). This helps the AI understand the workflow and preconditions.

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 concise, with only 4 sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose, then provides prerequisites, return behavior, and an escape hatch mention. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should fully explain the return value. It states 'Returns variables_reference for get_variables()' but does not describe the structure of the scopes themselves (e.g., an array of scope objects with names). This omission makes the description less complete for a tool with no output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the parameter's origin: frame_id comes from get_call_stack(). However, it does not describe the parameter's nature (e.g., null allowed, integer format) or its non-required status beyond the schema, leaving some ambiguity.

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 purpose: 'Get variable scopes for a stack frame.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('variable scopes'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_variables (which uses the returned reference) and get_call_stack (which provides the frame_id).

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 explicit prerequisites: 'State: STOPPED required. Call get_call_stack() first to get frame_id.' It also indicates the next step: the returned variables_reference is for get_variables(). This gives clear usage context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives.

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