list_scenarios

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add one meaningful trait beyond the name — that only files 'allowed within this workspace' are returned, implying permission/workspace scoping. However, it says nothing about ordering, hidden files, or the read-only nature beyond what 'List' implies.

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 seven-word sentence that front-loads the verb and communicates resource and scope with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema already covering return values, the description is nearly sufficient: it identifies what is listed and the workspace constraint. It falls slightly short by not situating the tool in the workflow (e.g., that listing scenarios is a precursor to running or reading them).

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain about arguments. Per the zero-parameter baseline, a 4 is appropriate; the description correctly does not waste space on parameter details.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('scenario files') with a scope qualifier ('allowed within this workspace'). It is not a tautology and implicitly differentiates from the sibling list_visual_artifacts by resource type, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage context is only implied: listing scenario files is naturally a discovery step before run_scenario or soak_scenario. The description offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and names no alternatives among the eight sibling tools.

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