list_sandbox_scenarios

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's line 'Static catalogue retrieval; read-only and instantaneous' largely restates that, adding only the minor detail that retrieval is instantaneous and involves no production data.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the resource definition first, then usage. The labeled-section formatting ('Purpose:', 'When to use:', 'Behavioral transparency:') is slightly heavier than necessary for a short catalogue tool, but every sentence carries information.

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 an output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile, and zero parameters, the description needs only to state scope and usage - which it does. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this tool correctly 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter guidance is needed or missing.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List built-in sandbox reconciliation scenarios and magic references') and clarifies these are deterministic test-mode items, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like load_sandbox_scenario or run_sandbox_scenario, relying on the verb 'list' to imply catalog-only retrieval.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use conditions with concrete examples (clean_match, month_end, fx_drift) and a clear when-NOT-to-use exclusion ('Do NOT use for production reconciliation batches'). This routes the agent well against the run/load siblings without ambiguity.

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