list_scenarios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the two actions ('list' and 'load') and their effects, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects (e.g., if loading a scenario affects other operations), or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly explain the tool's functionality and usage. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic actions and parameters but lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how this tool interacts with sibling tools in the trading context. For a tool with two actions and no structured behavioral data, it is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating the action purposes and noting that 'scenario_name' is required for 'load'. Since the schema already documents this well, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all available trading scenarios or load one into the runtime.' It specifies the verb ('list' or 'load') and resource ('trading scenarios'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'load_ticker' or 'update_ticker', which might handle similar resources. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-distinctive.

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 provides clear context on when to use each action: 'Use action='list' to see all scenarios with their context summaries. Use action='load' with scenario_name to switch the active scenario.' It specifies usage based on the action parameter, but does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives among siblings, such as 'load_ticker' for ticker-related operations.

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