cfg_list_scenarios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by using 'List', but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or safe. It also does not disclose any authentication requirements or performance impact.

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 a single sentence that conveys the essential information without any fluff. Every word is necessary and contributes to clarity.

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 the tool has no input parameters and an output schema exists, the description is largely sufficient. It states that all scenarios are listed with descriptions. However, it could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating it is a read-only operation or clarifying the scope (e.g., 'all' is already present).

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not attempt to add unnecessary param info.

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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'available OpenSIPS configuration scenarios', and mentions they come with descriptions. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like docker_list_scenarios or sipp_list_scenarios by specifying 'OpenSIPS configuration scenarios'.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as docker_list_scenarios or sipp_list_scenarios. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or context for usage.

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