List scenarios

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description earns credit for disclosing the return fields (uuid, name, type, status). However it says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset existing, leaving result-set handling opaque.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. The scope and filters are front-loaded and the return shape follows immediately, so every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields. It is nearly complete, with the only gap being the unexplained limit/offset paging semantics.

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 description coverage is only 25%: status is documented, scenario_type has an enum, but limit and offset are bare in both schema and description. The description does reinforce the type values (info_exchange/interview) and the status filter, but does not compensate for the undocumented pagination parameters.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('test scenarios') scoped to the VerifyAX workspace, and enumerates the supported filters. It is clear and self-contained, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling list/search tools like search_scenario_tags.

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?

'optionally filtered by type ... and status' implies the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no alternative tool named. The agent must infer that this is the unfiltered enumeration tool rather than a search sibling.

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