list_scenarios

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature. The description adds useful context that these are stored factor specs tied to model_ids and created via create_scenario, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details like return format or pagination. Compared to the calibration example, this is comparable to a 3.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: purpose, execution alternatives, and exclusion of Flow scenarios. No redundant or filler content.

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 a single optional parameter, an output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description fully covers what the tool does, the nature of the data, and how it relates to sibling tools. Nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema has 100% coverage of the single optional parameter (model_id) with a clear description. The tool description does not add parameter-level information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource: 'List saved Moment scenario templates'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly stating it is NOT for Flow scenarios (use list_flow_scenarios) and by contrasting with compute_returns for execution. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: lists when to use compute_returns for executing scenarios or ad-hoc tests, and explicitly excludes Flow scenarios with a pointer to list_flow_scenarios. This directly answers 'when should I use this vs alternatives?'

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