get_scenario_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Full configuration', not specifying whether the operation is read-only, what fields are returned, or if it requires authentication. The term 'configuration' implies a detailed object, but no details on structure.

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 with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured without losing conciseness.

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 minimal schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is vastly incomplete. It lacks information expected for a configuration retrieval tool: output format, required vs optional parameters, or example usage.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the two parameters (project, scenarioLabel). It doesn't explain their roles, formats, or how they identify the scenario, forcing the agent to rely solely on parameter names.

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 'Full configuration for one VRT scenario' clearly indicates the tool returns configuration details for a specific VRT scenario. It distinguishes from siblings like list_scenarios (which likely lists scenario names) by specifying 'full configuration' for a single scenario.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_scenarios, get_run_details). No context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when to call this tool.

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