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 indicates a non-mutating operation by using 'Return', but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or return format. For a simple list tool this is acceptable, but more detail (e.g., read-only guarantee, no parameters) would improve transparency.

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 clearly states the action. However, the trailing '(82-0 Dream)' is cryptic and adds little value, slightly detracting from clarity and conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and the type of content returned. It could mention whether it requires authentication or if the list is static, but for a list tool with no parameters, it is reasonably complete.

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, and the schema is empty (100% coverage by default). The description adds context about the content of the returned list (game modes, scenarios), which is helpful, though not strictly about parameters. Baseline is 4 due to no parameters.

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 a clear resource ('canonical list of game modes and scenarios'), with concrete examples (free play, daily, leaderboards). This distinguishes it from the sibling get_official_links, which focuses on links rather than scenarios.

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?

While the description implies a read-only, authoritative listing, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling tool get_official_links is not mentioned, so guidance is only inferred from the resource type.

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