pc_list_scenarios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the basic listing behavior but omits important traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination, or output format. The lack of output schema exacerbates this gap.

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 efficiently states the core purpose. It is front-loaded, but could benefit from a brief expansion on parameter details without becoming verbose.

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 and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps. The agent is not informed about the response format, whether the tool is read-only, or how to effectively use the area filter. More completeness is needed for an agent to reliably invoke this tool.

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 0% coverage for parameter descriptions. The description adds only that filtering is optional by area, but does not explain the meaning of enum values (e.g., what 'customers' entails). The parameter semantics are underdeveloped.

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?

Description clearly states verb (list) and resource (supported Partner Center REST scenarios), with optional filtering by area. It is easily distinguished from sibling '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?

Implies usage for listing scenarios, optionally filtering by area, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pc_get_scenario or pc_search_docs. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.

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