get_role_scenarios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It states it returns 'typical scenarios' and 'guidance,' but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only status, side effects, pagination, or output format. The return value structure is not described beyond a high-level list.

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 concise with two paragraphs: a two-sentence purpose and a brief parameter explanation. It is front-loaded but could be slightly more streamlined by separating parameter info from the main description. No unnecessary repetition.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the parameter adequately and sets expectations for the content (scenarios, role classification, exceptions). However, it does not explain the format of exceptions or how guidance is structured, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 only parameter 'scenario_type' has a default and title in schema but no description. The description adds meaning by listing example values ('saas', 'api', 'cloud') and clarifies that 'all' returns all scenarios. This compensates well for the schema's lack of description, providing actionable guidance.

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?

Description states 'Get common controller/processor scenarios and role determinations,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It specifies it returns typical scenarios with role classification and exceptions. While it differentiates from siblings like 'assess_controller_processor_role' implicitly, it does not explicitly distinguish its purpose from similar tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'assess_controller_processor_role' or 'get_role_obligations.' The description implies usage for getting typical scenarios but lacks when-not-to-use or context for selection.

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