scenario_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (parameters, prior runs, and step log when run is supplied), which is genuinely useful, but it omits the read-only nature, any pagination/limit behavior, and error conditions for an unknown run.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the resource is front-loaded and the parameter behavior is appended. The parenthetical example list is slightly heavy but earns its place by clarifying what a 'runbook' covers.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers what is returned and the parameter's effect, but it omits sibling differentiation and invocation context, so an agent still has to guess how it relates to scenario_start and scenario_step.

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% for the single 'run' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does explain the parameter's effect ('the step log of that run'), but not its expected format (ID vs name) or what happens when omitted, leaving the semantics only partially covered.

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 concrete resource — runbooks (scenarios) for whole operations — plus what is returned: their parameters and the runs started so far, with step-log detail when run is set. It is clear enough to act on, but it never names or distinguishes itself from the sibling scenario_start / scenario_step tools.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The only usage-adjacent statement is 'With run: the step log of that run,' which hints at the parameter's effect but does not tell the agent when to prefer this tool over scenario_step.

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