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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It does: it explains that variables are {{token}} placeholders in agent prompts with types, and that the read is a prerequisite for writes. It does not mention pagination or result size limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The content summary comes first and the usage instruction second, so the most actionable information is neither buried nor repeated.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing returns — and it does, enumerating both halves of the payload (variables and scenarios with values). Combined with 100% schema coverage on inputs and clear annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and both parameters (flowId, workspace) are fully documented in the schema, including workspace-token nuance. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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 names the exact resource set returned: a flow's variables (with their {{token}} syntax and types) plus every saved scenario and its values. That is specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling scenarios_create/update/delete tools without opening any schema.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition and ordering rule: 'Read this before creating or updating a scenario,' naming the alternatives by function. The agent knows both when to call it and which tools it must precede.

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