make_list_scenarios

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses fallback logic, result capping (default 500), and the 'capped' indicator. It doesn't cover rate limits or authentication, but adds sufficient behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and key parameters. Every word adds value, no redundancy.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers all parameters, fallback, filters, and result limits. It mentions the 'capped' field to indicate truncation, which is complete enough. Missing sorting or pagination details, but not essential.

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 100% (baseline 3). The description adds meaning by explaining the fallback relationship between team_id and organization_id, the effect of active_only, and the limit cap behavior, which goes beyond the schema 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 Make.com scenarios for a team or organization, with specific verb 'List' and resource 'scenarios (automations).' It distinguishes from siblings like make_get_scenario (single scenario) and make_list_executions (different entity).

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 explains when to provide team_id vs organization_id, fallback behavior, and filter options like active_only and limit. It gives clear context for usage, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or state when-not to use.

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