List scenarios and intervention targets

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real domain context beyond them: it runs no market (no cost/side effects) and warns that four targets have effects too small to observe over a hundred days. These are non-obvious traits an agent would not infer from the schema or 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?

Front-loaded with what it lists, then usage guidance, then the behavioral caveats. Three dense sentences with no filler; each clause carries distinct 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?

Output schema exists, so return format needn't be restated, and the description still summarizes the return content (targets and what each was measured to reach). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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?

Tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 4. The description's 'Takes no arguments' simply confirms the empty schema rather than adding parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and three concrete resources (shipped stress scenarios, scenario constructors, intervention targets) plus what each target was measured to reach. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings build_scenario and run_stress_scenario, which the description names directly.

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?

Explicitly instructs to read before build_scenario or run_stress_scenario and gives the reason (first_event_day sets the shortest useful run; four targets have imperceptible effects). Names the alternatives and the condition that selects this tool over them.

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