list_flow_scenarios

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which sets a safe baseline. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: it lists only 'completed constrained scenarios,' returns specific fields (job IDs, constraints, satisfaction rates, timestamps), and clarifies that it doesn't re-run scenarios. This adds value without contradicting 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?

The description is exactly two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb and resource, the second adds the primary use case and a pointer to a related tool. Every phrase earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

With only one parameter, an output schema present, and read-only annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, output fields, and usage context. It doesn't need to explain return values in depth since the output schema exists, and it provides enough context for correct selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already describes model_group_id as 'UUID of the Flow model group (from train_flow_model, or list_model_groups).' The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond echoing the resource type, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List completed constrained scenarios for a Flow model group.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_flow_baselines (baselines vs. scenarios) and simulate_flow_scenario (simulation vs. listing). It also specifies what is listed and the output contents, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides a clear use case ('find previous scenario results without re-running them') and connects to an alternative tool ('pass any flow_job_id to test_flow_risk for risk metrics'). It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool or mention alternatives for listing scenarios, but the implied usage context is strong, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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