list_scenarios

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval action ('Return') and calls the result 'canonical', signaling an authoritative, non-mutating operation. It does not mention error handling or response details, but these are not critical for a simple list retrieval.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and examples. However, the trailing '(20-0)' is unexplained and adds no value, slightly detracting from an otherwise concise structure.

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, parameterless list tool, the description is complete enough: it states the return type (list), the subject (game modes/scenarios), and gives representative examples. The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the return value is self-evident, though the odd '(20-0)' token introduces minor ambiguity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds useful context about the contents of the returned list (free play, daily, leaderboards), which is sufficient given there is nothing to document at the parameter level.

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 ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('canonical list of game modes and scenarios'), with examples of contents. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_official_links', which focuses on links rather than canonical game modes.

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 implies its use by stating it returns the canonical list of game modes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention the sibling tool. There is no exclusionary guidance, so the usage context is only implied.

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