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 behavioral burden. It discloses the returned content (verdict, gate) for these published scenarios, which helps, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or result size for what could be a large list.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the workflow hint follows immediately.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description names the key return fields (verdict, gate) and its role as the entry point for obtaining a scenario_key. For a no-parameter listing tool this is nearly complete, with only scale/pagination behavior unaddressed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter syntax for the description to add.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('published held-out scenarios'), and further specifies the returned fields (verdict and gate). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like gate_decision or verify_prediction without opening the schema.

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?

'Call this first to find a scenario_key' gives clear ordering guidance and reveals the workflow role of the tool. It does not explicitly name which alternative tool to use instead if a scenario_key is already known, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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