scope_at

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does a good job by stating the output ordering ('outermost first') and that scanner warnings are returned separately. It does not mention error behavior for invalid lines/procedures, but the disclosed ordering and separate warning channel add real transparency.

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 two compact sentences with no fluff. The first sentence leads with the core query and ordering; the second adds relevant behavior about warnings. Every clause 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 low-complexity lookup with two simple, fully described parameters and no output schema, this is largely complete: it tells the agent what it returns, in what order, and that warnings come separately. It could be more explicit about not-found cases or the exact shape of returned loop identifiers, but the current description is sufficient for most selection and invocation decisions.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters as 'Procedure name' and 'Line number'. The description restates them conceptually ('given line of a procedure') but adds no format constraints, examples, or value ranges. Baseline 3 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 the tool's purpose: returning the loops that enclose a given line of a procedure, ordered outermost first. The phrase 'the variables live at that point' adds useful semantic context. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'loops', but the line-specific focus is distinctive enough.

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 when to use it: when you need loop nesting or variable scope at a specific line in a procedure. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from the sibling 'loops' or 'provenance' tools, so the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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