pc_get_scenario

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns endpoint, auth, headers, examples, and gotchas, and explains the 'enrich' parameter's effect. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., missing id), auth requirements, or read-only nature explicitly.

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 convey the tool's purpose and a key parameter option with zero wasted words. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description outlines the return content (endpoint, auth, etc.), providing a good mental model. It lacks explicit mention of return format (e.g., JSON) and error handling, but for a simple retrieval tool with few parameters, it is mostly complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the 'enrich' parameter well ('attach live doc excerpts') but only implies 'id' is the scenario identifier without detailing its format or origin. The explanation is partial, leaving ambiguity about 'id'.

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 the tool retrieves a full record for a Partner Center scenario, specifying included components like endpoint, auth, headers, REST examples, and gotchas. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pc_list_scenarios (which lists scenarios) and pc_get_reference (which retrieves reference docs).

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 implies use when a detailed scenario record is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., pc_get_reference, pc_search_docs) or provide any when-not scenarios. No guidance on prerequisites or context is given.

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