scf_get_scoping_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' is consistent with that safety profile. The description adds what data is returned but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as aggregation scope, data freshness, or response limits. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the operation, resource, and the key return components in a compact, readable structure that an agent can quickly 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?

For a one-parameter read-only statistics tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the agent will receive: counts by status, overall completion percentage, and per-framework coverage breakdown. Nothing critical is missing at this complexity level.

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 coverage is 100% with a single required org_id parameter, and the schema itself already explains it is an Organization UUID and points to scf_list_organizations. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and identifies the resource ('organization's implementation statistics'), then enumerates the contents: counts by status, overall completion percentage, and per-framework coverage breakdown. This clearly distinguishes it from other read-only summary tools like scf_get_evidence_maturity or scf_get_risk_summary, even without naming a sibling.

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 by describing what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only extra contextual hint is the schema note advising to obtain org_id from scf_list_organizations, which is a prerequisite rather than a selection rule.

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