bounty_get_scope

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

With no annotations, the description itself carries the behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' makes the read-only nature clear, and the include_oos parameter is explained as controlling whether explicitly declared out-of-scope assets are returned, which adds useful behavioral detail. It does not discuss permissions or rate limits, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.

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 opens with a one-sentence purpose statement and then lists the three parameters with clear, relevant semantics. There is no filler, and the most useful information is front-loaded.

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 low-complexity three-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the operation, all parameters, and the main behavioral switch. It could slightly improve by explaining how to obtain or format the identifier, but the existing content is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: platform is given an explicit list of valid values, identifier is identified as the program identifier, and include_oos has its semantics and default stated. The only weakness is that 'program identifier' remains somewhat vague (e.g., slug vs. ID).

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve all structured scope items (in-scope and out-of-scope) for a specific program.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like bounty_get_program (program metadata) or bounty_search_programs (search) by naming scope items as the focus.

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 implies usage for a known program's scope by requiring platform and identifier, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over siblings or when not to use it. There is no comparison to bounty_get_program or bounty_check_target, so the guidance is only implied by the stated purpose.

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