Get scenarios in a form

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds the exact GET method, states body fields are none, and provides an API reference link, which are useful behavioral details beyond 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?

Three short sentences that front-load the action and endpoint, with no filler. The body-note and reference link are useful and each sentence earns its place.

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 GET tool with rich annotations, the definition plus schema provides what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: required path params, optional query behavior, and the exact endpoint. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and return-shape detail, but those are not blocking for invocation.

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 endpoint template adds context that planId and formId are path placeholders, and the query property in the schema already documents query parameters and pagination behavior. However, the path parameters themselves are not explained beyond names and placement, and schema description coverage is only 50%.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get scenarios in a form', and the endpoint template explicitly scopes it to planId and formId. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xmatters_get_scenarios and xmatters_get_a_form_in_a_plan.

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 'in a form' phrasing and endpoint path imply it is for retrieving scenarios scoped to a specific form, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The intended usage is inferable rather than stated.

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