Scopes del usuario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states a read-like action (list) but does not explicitly mention that it is read-only, nor does it describe potential errors, side effects, or return format. The behavior is implied but not fully disclosed.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any fluff or unnecessary details. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description sufficiently conveys that the tool returns a list of scopes, satisfying the core context for a simple get operation. While it lacks details about output format or edge cases, the simplicity of the tool makes the description almost complete.

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 zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter details to explain. The description adds nothing about parameters, but since none exist, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 lists the scopes (tenants) the authenticated user belongs to, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_available_tenants or list_tenants by focusing on the authenticated user's scopes, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 when needing the authenticated user's scopes but does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools or provide conditions for when to prefer this tool over others. No explicit guidance is given, only the basic functionality.

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