get_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and reveals meaningful behavior: matching is by substring containment, and the response includes full detail and ordered steps with doc-string/data-table flags. It also signals read-only intent via 'Use to read.' It omits minor behaviors like result ordering or default limit, but those are partially covered by the schema's limit parameter.

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 tight, information-dense sentences with no filler. The first front-loads the exact contents of the returned detail; the second adds a clear usage context. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description covers return content, matching behavior, and a use case. It could be improved by explicitly naming sibling tools to avoid confusion with search_scenarios, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, with both parameters documented in the schema. The description's mention that name is matched by substring effectively restates the schema and adds no new semantic detail. Limit is not elaborated in the description, but the schema already covers its default and meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('get' + 'scenario') and enumerates the returned fields (feature, tags, kind, example-row count, file:line, ordered steps). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish get_scenario from the sibling search_scenarios or state selection criteria relative to those alternatives.

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 sentence 'Use to read an existing scenario before writing a similar one' provides a clear and concrete use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives such as search_scenarios for lighter-weight discovery.

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