get_md_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and explicitly states 'Does not mutate the MD scene,' signaling a safe read operation. It also discloses an external dependency ('Requires local index') and a maintenance caveat ('Documentation can lag the runtime'). This goes well beyond what the schema provides.

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 core operation, followed by prerequisites and caveats. Every clause adds useful information; there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 one-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: it is read-only, requires an index update, and needs path/mutation review before execution. The main omission is the return shape or content structure of the scenario, which matters because there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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, 'name', has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description does not explain what valid name values look like, how to locate them, or whether they are IDs, paths, or titles. Saying 'one official scenario' only weakly implies that name is the scenario identifier. The description fails to compensate for the schema's missing parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('one official scenario'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling search_md_scenarios and general get_md_doc. The word 'official' further narrows the tool's object. There is no ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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?

It gives concrete usage context: adapt paths and review mutations before execution, and requires the local index via 'md-mcp update-docs'. It also warns that documentation can lag the runtime. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the read-only pre-execution context is clear.

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