See example reconciliation scenarios in test mode, demonstrating expected payment-to-booking match outcomes without using real data.
List the built-in sandbox scenarios (test-mode fixtures). Each demonstrates one reconciliation outcome so you can try the flow with zero real data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds that scenarios demonstrate reconciliation outcomes, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond 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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action 'List' and immediate context. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, output schema exists, and context signals show high coverage. Description sufficiently explains what it does and why it is useful, leaving no gaps.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline 4 applies as description does not need to add param info but explains the output's purpose.
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?
Description specifies 'List the built-in sandbox scenarios' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like load_sandbox_scenario and run_sandbox_scenario by stating these are test-mode fixtures for trying flows with zero real data.
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?
Description implies usage when wanting to try reconciliation with test data, providing context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but the sibling names suggest distinct purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.