listScenarios

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'with metadata' suggests the return content, but it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, default project scope, pagination, or output shape. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple one-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks explicit mention of what metadata is returned and the default project-scoping behavior. The allProjects default must be inferred from the schema, and the phrase 'all scenarios' is slightly ambiguous without qualification.

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 100%; the only parameter (allProjects) has its own clear description. The tool description contributes no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('scenarios with metadata'), so the core purpose is identifiable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like searchScenarios or getScenarioInfo; 'all' implies breadth but no sibling comparison is given.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as searchScenarios, getScenarioInfo, or deleteScenario. The allProjects parameter hints at project scoping but the description does not state use cases, exclusions, or why one would choose this tool over similar ones.

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