list_chaos_scenarios

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's only added behavioral signal is the implicit 'generated harness' precondition. It omits what happens if the harness_dir doesn't exist or isn't a generated harness, and says nothing about result volume or pagination.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the under-specification noted elsewhere.

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?

With readOnlyHint covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description needn't explain results. But for a tool taking a harness_dir with no schema documentation, it should at least clarify the parameter's expected form and the precondition that a harness exists, which it does not.

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 0% for the single required parameter harness_dir, so the description carries the full burden. It only implies the parameter points at a generated harness, giving no format, path convention, or error behavior to compensate for the schema gap.

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 resource ('chaos scenarios of a generated harness'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like activate_chaos/deactivate_chaos or clarify how it relates to generate_harness, which would be needed for a 5.

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 on when to use this versus sibling tools such as inspect_spec or the chaos activate/deactivate tools, nor any stated precondition (e.g., that a harness must already be generated). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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