list_simulation_scenarios

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. It implies a read operation but never states that it is read-only, whether results are paginated, what the default ordering is, or what happens when the limit is exceeded; only the resource's meaning is explained.

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 with the resource front-loaded and the gloss following immediately. It wastes no words, though the explanatory clause is more helpful for a human than for tool selection.

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 simple two-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource adequately. However, it omits filtering semantics for name and pagination behavior for limit, which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 50%: the limit parameter is documented in the schema (default 50, max 1000), but the name parameter has no description anywhere. The description does not clarify whether name filters, matches exactly, or some other semantics, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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 uses a clear verb 'Lists' and a specific resource 'simulation scenarios', then expands with a plain-language gloss ('the scripts testers follow and the checks that decide pass or fail'). It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like list_simulations or list_simulation_suites, so an agent must infer the distinction from names alone.

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 about when to use this tool rather than load_skill, list_simulations, list_simulation_suites, or get_simulation_run. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving selection entirely to the tool name.

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