get_scenarios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states a simple listing operation without mentioning whether it requires authentication, is read-only, or handles pagination. The schema's count and offset imply pagination, but the description does not confirm or explain response structure, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose without any fluff. It is extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema and only 3 parameters. The description is insufficiently complete: it does not explain the return format, fields, or any side effects. For a list operation, the agent would benefit from knowing the response structure (e.g., list of scenario objects with IDs, names). The description fails to provide this context.

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 with descriptions for all three parameters (count, offset, scenario_name). The description adds no extra parameter information. According to the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Get list of Voximplant scenarios' which identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings that target other resources (e.g., accounts, calls, rules). However, it lacks specificity about the scope (e.g., all scenarios or filtered) and does not mention pagination, which the schema implies.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it. For a list tool with many similar 'get' siblings, explicit usage context is missing.

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