list_phishing_campaign_scenarios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It indicates a GET call (read-only) and mentions filtering, pagination, sorting, and include values, which is useful. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or what the response array contains beyond the existence of an output schema. It adds moderate value but is not thorough for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and endpoint. It is efficient with no fluff. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet-like clarity), but it is appropriately concise and readable.

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 generic schema and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core intent and parameter placement. However, it lacks explicit mention of required fields (like phishingCampaignId) and does not clarify whether the body parameter is ever used (it is a GET call). While the endpoint hints at requirements, the description leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that path_params should contain route IDs and query should hold filtering/pagination/sorting/include values, which is helpful. Yet it does not specify the exact key names (e.g., phishingCampaignId) or provide any structure for the generic objects. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent to construct valid calls.

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 ('List scenarios attached to a phishing campaign') and specifies the resource (scenarios for a campaign). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_phishing_campaigns (lists campaigns) and list_phishing_scenarios (all scenarios), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 practical guidance on where to place parameters ('route IDs in path_params, filtering... in query'), which helps invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_phishing_campaign_scenario for a single scenario) or provide exclusions. Usage context is implied by the name and endpoint rather than spelled out.

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