Get a scenario

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds the HTTP method and body-fields-none detail, but doesn't disclose response format or other behavioral nuances. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise with minimal waste, front-loading the action and endpoint. The reference link is useful, but the structure is flat with no bullet points or emphasis on key details.

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 simple GET-by-ID tool, the description covers the essential call, but it omits any mention of the response shape or the available query parameters (though the schema covers those). Given no output schema and minimal behavioral disclosure, it's adequate but not rich.

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?

Schema coverage is only 50% (query has a description, path does not). The description adds no parameter explanations beyond saying body fields are none. The scenarioId parameter is self-evident from context, but the description doesn't compensate for the low 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'scenario' with an explicit endpoint path. It distinguishes from plural 'get_scenarios' by using 'a scenario' and including a scenarioId placeholder, though it doesn't name alternatives directly.

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 given on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_scenarios or get_scenarios_in_a_form. The description lacks any contextual cues or exclusions.

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