Lists simulation scenarios with the venue and real-world effect each injects, so you can select the correct scenario for replay, error analysis, or A/B testing.
List simulation scenarios with the venue they use and the real-world effect each one injects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a safe read, and it does disclose what each result contains, but it says nothing about whether all scenarios are returned, whether results are ordered, or how large the catalog can get.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return contents appended rather than buried. Nothing redundant.
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 read tool with an output schema covering return values, the description gives what an agent needs: what is listed and what each item includes. Only the lack of any volume/ordering note keeps it from complete.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the schema is fully described and requires no narrative support.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('simulation scenarios'), and adds what each entry carries (venue + injected real-world effect). This is clearly a catalog read, distinguishable in kind from simulate_scenario or run_replay, though the description never names a sibling to sharpen that contrast.
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 is only implied: a parameterless list reads naturally as a discovery step before simulate_scenario or run_replay, but the description never says so or mentions any alternative. No when-not-to-use guidance is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.