get_phishing_campaign_scenario_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a GET call, implying a read-only operation, but does not state safety, data exposure, authentication requirements, or pagination limits. This is insufficient for full 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 short but structurally awkward: 'Put route IDs in path_params and filtering, pagination, sorting, or include values in query' is grammatically ambiguous and could mislead an agent. It is concise but sacrifices clarity.

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?

Given the empty schema coverage and three generic parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not specify that a path parameter is likely required despite the schema marking all parameters optional, nor does it list the supported query fields. An agent would need external API knowledge to invoke this 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It offers some guidance: route IDs go in path_params and filtering/pagination/sorting/include values in query. However, it is vague, omits body semantics, and does not name expected keys such as phishingCampaignScenarioId or query parameter names.

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 gets the phishing scenario associated with a campaign-scenario, which is specific and easily distinguishable from siblings like get_phishing_campaign_scenario or get_phishing_campaign_scenario_campaign. It also shows the explicit endpoint path, removing ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to prefer this tool over the closely related get_phishing_campaign_scenario or get_phishing_scenario. The second sentence only explains where to place parameters, not which tool should be used in which context.

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