List Scenarios

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by defining scenarios and stating that project context is required, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as response shape, ordering, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the scenario definition and context requirement are useful additions that earn their 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 simple list tool with fully documented pagination parameters, the description covers the core behavior, scope, and prerequisite. The absence of an output schema and return-value description is not a major gap because the tool's purpose is straightforward.

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 description coverage is 100%, with skip and take both documented directly in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List all test scenarios in the active project.' It also defines what a scenario is ('multi-step workflows that chain test cases with variable passing and conditional execution'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_test_cases and list_scenario_runs.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite: 'Requires project context,' telling the agent that the active project must be set before invocation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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