List Scenarios

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations, such as 'most recent first' ordering and the semantics of the limit parameter (default 20, 0 returns all). No contradictions exist.

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 well-structured: main behavior and ordering in the first sentence, returned fields in the second, usage guidance in the third, and a clean Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to parse.

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?

The description fully covers the single optional parameter and the tool's purpose. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return structure. It could mention the project context more explicitly, but the description is sufficiently complete for a list tool.

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 schema only provides type and default for the limit parameter, but the description fully explains its meaning: 'Maximum number of scenarios to return (default 20). Set to 0 to return all scenarios.' This goes well beyond the schema's minimal coverage.

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 lists scenarios in the project, most recent first, and enumerates the returned fields (names, IDs, tags, row counts, creation dates). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_scenario or save_scenario.

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?

It provides a clear context: 'Use this to discover existing scenarios before running a test.' While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, the guidance is sufficient for a list operation, and no other sibling offers the same discovery functionality.

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