get_scenario

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

The readOnlyHint is provided, and the description aligns with that. It adds the detail about 'factor specs' being included, which is a slight behavioral/return signal, but no other behavioral traits (e.g., error behavior, auth) are disclosed. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the essential action and scope. It could improve by explicitly mentioning that it is for a specific scenario and not a list, but given the sibling context, it is fairly 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 schema already describes scenario_id as 'The scenario UUID' (100% coverage). The description adds no new parameter-level detail; it only hints at the return content ('factor specs'), which is not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and names the resource ('saved scenario') and outlines the key content ('factor specs'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_scenario, list_scenarios, and delete_scenario.

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 the tool is for retrieving a single scenario's details, contrasting with list_scenarios for listing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives, leaving usage context implicit.

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