ea_get_scenarios

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only (readOnlyHint=true), covering side-effect safety. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: the structure of the returned scenarios (name, type, notes, steps, step attributes) and the ordering by type (Basic Path, Alternate, Exception). This informs the agent about the response shape and expectation, going beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 compact—three sentences total. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then efficiently details the result structure and ordering. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or fluff, and the organization is logical.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description explains the return structure in detail (scenario fields, step fields, step numbering, ordering). It appropriately covers what the agent needs to interpret results. Minor omissions like possible type values beyond the ordering context are implied through the ordering note, so nothing critical is missing.

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 only parameter, elementId, has 100% schema description coverage: 'The Object_ID of the element (typically a UseCase) to get scenarios for.' The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, such as constraints or special usage notes. Since the schema carries the full semantic load, the baseline 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 opens with 'Get use case scenario flows for an element,' which is a specific verb ('get'), a clear resource ('use case scenario flows'), and the scope ('for an element'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ea_search and ea_list_elements by focusing on scenario flows, so an agent can identify its unique purpose without inspecting other tools.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need scenario flows for an element) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use it. There is no 'use X instead' guidance, and while the purpose is unambiguous, the absence of exclusions or comparison to siblings leaves selection partly to inference.

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