discovery_scopes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses a key negative behavior (no scanning or content admission) and 'Return' implies read-only retrieval, but it does not address side effects, permissions, or error 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 compact and front-loaded: the verb and resource appear first, and the negative scope statement earns its place. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description leaves key gaps: what 'discovery scopes' are, how workspace_root affects results, and when to choose this over the many sibling tools. It is too terse for a fully informed agent call.

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%, and the description never mentions workspace_root, its meaning, format, or effect on the returned scopes. The description adds no parameter-level value beyond the schema's name and default.

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 ('Return') and resource ('portable typed discovery scopes'), and explicitly contrasts with content scanning/admission. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like filesystem_scan and intake_request, though the term 'discovery scopes' remains domain-specific.

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 clause 'this does not scan or admit content' implies exclusions and indirectly points toward alternatives like filesystem_scan or intake_request. However, it never states a positive use case, prerequisites, or explicit routing conditions.

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