pc_list_scenarios

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the tool lists scenarios optionally filtered, but omits details like pagination, authentication requirements, or rate limiting. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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 of 12 words with no superfluous information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and filter option.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., list of names vs. full objects), and lacks context about when to use this tool over siblings.

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 schema has only one optional parameter with enum values, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description's phrase 'optionally filtered by area' adds meaning by clarifying the parameter's role, which compensates for the lack of param descriptions.

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 lists supported Partner Center REST scenarios, with optional filtering by area. The verb 'list' and resource 'scenarios' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like pc_get_scenario which likely retrieves a single scenario.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pc_get_scenario or pc_generate_call. The description lacks explicit when/when-not instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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