sipp_list_scenarios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions searching for .xml files but fails to disclose whether the search is recursive, what happens if the directory is invalid, or if it requires read permissions. The behavior is only partially transparent.

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 very concise with two sentences that quickly convey the core purpose and parameter. No extraneous information is included, but the brevity sacrifices completeness in other dimensions.

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's complexity (a simple list of files) and the presence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the returned data contains (e.g., full paths, names). It lacks context on how to interpret results, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 description adds meaning to the 'scenarios_dir' parameter by stating it is a 'Directory to search for .xml scenario files,' which goes beyond the schema's title and type. However, it does not explain the default value or how the parameter is used (e.g., required or optional).

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 'List available SIPp scenario files,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'sipp_run_scenario' or 'sip_generate_sipp_scenario' by focusing on listing. However, it does not specify the output format or what constitutes 'available.'

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't suggest using it before running a scenario or warn that it only lists .xml files. The description merely states the action without contextual hints.

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