ea_get_scenarios

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: scenarios are parsed flows ordered by type (Basic Path first, then Alternate, then Exception), steps are numbered within each scenario, and `uses` codes are not independently searchable or resolvable. This gives the agent important runtime expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence adds necessary information about output shape, ordering, step numbering, or the constraint-lookup caveat. There is no filler and no redundant repetition of schema content.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining return shape and does so well: `scenarios` contains flows with name/type/notes/steps, and each step carries stepNumber plus trigger/uses/result/state/link. It also documents ordering and the non-obvious `uses` resolution path, making the tool effectively self-contained for a single-parameter call.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single `elementId` parameter, describing it as the Object_ID of the element, typically a UseCase. The description reinforces that this ID selects whose scenarios to fetch but does not add new parameter-level details, so the baseline 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 first sentence names a specific operation ('Get use case scenario flows') on a specific resource ('an element'), and the rest of the description defines what the result contains. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling search/list tools because it is specifically about scenario flows for a UseCase element.

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 states this tool is for retrieving scenario flows for a given elementId, which directly implies its primary use. It also gives an explicit when-not/alternative: `uses` codes are not independently resolvable and should be looked up via `ea_get_element` on the same element's constraints. It does not compare against all sibling tools broadly, 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.