list_phishing_campaign_scenario_attempts

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

With no annotations present, behavior must come from the description. It does disclose that this calls a GET endpoint, so the operation is clearly read-only, and it implies there are no destructive side-effects. However, it does not mention permissions, authentication, rate-limit implications, or what happens when no attempts exist, so the transparency is only partial.

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 text is short and front-loads the purpose, followed by a parameter-placement hint with no filler. The grammar of the sentence 'Put route IDs in path_params and filtering, pagination, sorting, or include values in query' is confusing, preventing a perfect score.

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 complete absence of useful schema constraints and annotations, the description bears much more weight and is not complete. It tells the agent little more than the existence of path and query bags, leaving body semantics unknown and the specific query keys undocumented. The output schema may describe the response, but request construction remains under-specified for a typical list endpoint.

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 schema provides only empty objects with additionalProperties, leaving 0% coverage. The description offers meaningful guidance by saying route IDs belong in path_params and that filtering, pagination, sorting, or 'include' values go into query. This helps, but it never mentions the body parameter nor lists the actual query key names, so an agent with no other context will struggle to construct specific valid requests.

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 action and resource: 'List attempts for a campaign-scenario' and reinforces it with the exact endpoint, which distinguishes it from adjacent siblings such as list_phishing_campaign_attempts and list_phishing_campaign_scenarios. It could be improved by an explicit contrast to list_phishing_campaign_attempts, but the current wording is specific enough.

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 when to use the tool simply by stating that it lists attempts for a campaign-scenario, but it never says when not to use it, nor does it route to any alternative. There is no explicit handling of the choice between this and the closely related attempt or scenario listers, leaving the agent to infer based on the name.

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