scenario

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only reveals that 'get' is summary-first and can be expanded with parameters, but gives no information about side effects, safety, return formats, or what 'run' or 'delete' actually do. The destructive nature of delete is only implied by the verb itself, not disclosed.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the operation list and includes one practical usage tip. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool appears to support multiple operations, but the input schema has zero properties, and the description does not explain how an agent specifies which operation to execute. The includeScript/includeDefinition tip is helpful for 'get', but the absence of any invocation contract for create/update/delete/run and lack of output schema leave the description incomplete for real use.

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 input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4 under the rubric. The description adds meaning by naming includeScript/includeDefinition and explaining they provide details for 'get', which is valuable beyond the empty schema. However, it does not explain how the operation (list/run/etc.) is selected, which is a notable 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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Scenario ops' and enumerates the exact operations (list/run/status/get/create/update/delete), making it clear this is the tool for scenario management. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like project, dataset, and recipe by explicitly naming the scenario resource.

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?

The description gives clear context that this is the tool for scenario operations and provides an actionable tip for using 'get' with includeScript/includeDefinition to retrieve details. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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