List scenarios

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that—scenarios are ordered event sequences and are authored in the dashboard, so they cannot be created through this API—but it says nothing about pagination, ordering of the returned list, or behavior for an unknown endpoint slug.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every clause earns its place—the parenthetical example makes 'scenario' concrete, and the dashboard note is a real scope signal rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value. It conveys that a list of scenarios comes back but not whether each entry includes an identifier (needed to call run_scenario) or a name/count, which is the key detail for the natural follow-up call. Otherwise adequate for a single-parameter read tool.

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% and the endpoint parameter's schema text already specifies UUID, catch URL, and reserved slug formats. The description only echoes 'on an endpoint' without adding format or resolution details, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the saved scenarios on an endpoint') and goes further by defining what a scenario is: an ordered set of captured events that run_scenario replays. That definition separates it cleanly from siblings like run_scenario (which replays) and list_events (which returns raw events) without the agent needing to open 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?

Usage is only implied: by describing scenarios as the thing run_scenario replays, the description hints this is the discovery step before running one, and 'built in the dashboard' implies there is no create_scenario equivalent. It never explicitly states when to call this versus list_events or what to do with the result, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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