hackerone_search_scopes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a non-obvious matching behavior (asset-only searches match program names first, and empty asset yields no match unless program_handle is passed). However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, result ordering, or whether the search is case-sensitive.

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 with the core purpose. The second sentence adds a necessary usage caveat. It is slightly dense but 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 search tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main search semantics and a key edge case. However, it omits details like result format, pagination, and default limit behavior, which an agent might need to interpret results correctly. It is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%: asset and program have descriptions, while limit and bounty_only do not. The description adds context for the asset and program parameters by explaining their combined behavior, but it does not add meaning for limit or bounty_only beyond their names. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('in-scope assets'), and identifies the key filtering dimensions (program, asset substring, bounty-only). It is distinguishable from siblings like hackerone_search_programs and hackerone_get_program_scope, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: searching in-scope assets by program and/or asset substring, optionally bounty-only. It also provides a usage caveat ('Asset without program matches program names first (empty = no match, pass program_handle)'), which helps an agent avoid a common mistake. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool, but the scope is clear enough.

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