get_scenario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the read action. It says nothing about permissions, whether the scenario must exist, error behavior for an invalid scenarioId, or what 'details' includes.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of any elaboration.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read tool with no nested objects and no output schema, so the burden is modest. Still, the description leaves the agent without any indication of the return shape or error conditions for a lookup that requires a valid ID.

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 100% for the single scenarioId parameter, so the schema already documents the required input. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific scenario'), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_scenario_blueprint or get_scenario_logs, which also retrieve scenario-related information.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. In a cluster containing list_scenarios, get_scenario_blueprint, get_scenario_logs, and get_current_user, an agent gets no help deciding which retrieval tool to pick.

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