list_scenarios

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the file path pattern and returned fields but omits important details such as error handling (e.g., what if the path doesn't exist), permissions required, or whether results are paginated. The behavior is partially transparent but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence, concise but missing key information about the parameter. It is front-loaded with the action and resource but fails to explain the parameter meaning. Slightly too terse given the need for parameter context.

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?

An output schema exists (true) but is not shown; the description lists three fields (id, tags, validity) which is helpful. However, without parameter explanation or usage comparisons to siblings, the description feels incomplete. For a simple list operation, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has one required parameter (project_root) with no description (0% coverage). The description does not explain what project_root is, its expected format, or how it relates to the file path. The agent must infer that project_root is a directory containing `.agent-sim/scenarios/`. This is insufficient.

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 verb ('List'), the resource ('all scenarios'), and specifics about location (`.agent-sim/scenarios/*.jsonl`) and included fields (id, tags, validity). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_scenario or validate_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_runs or validate_scenario. The description assumes the agent knows to use it for listing scenarios but does not exclude cases where filtering or validation might be needed.

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