run_scenario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions recording artifacts, which is a side effect, but it doesn't clarify whether the tool mutates state, requires an open session, how long it runs, what happens on failure, or what the artifacts imply for the agent.

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 one short sentence with no fluff, and the primary verb and object are front-loaded. The vague parenthetical about 'bug semantics' is the only detractor.

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 complexity of the input schema (a full Scenario definition with RunOptions and many step types), this description does not helped the agent understand when or how to invoke it. It doesn't explain the relationship with run_ticket, whether options affect behavior, or any prerequisites such as sessions, output schema presence. It is not complete enough.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to either parameter. The 'scenario' parameter is merely restated and 'options' is not mentioned at all, leaving the agent with zero guidance on how to construct a Scenario or configure runs.

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 states both the action and resource clearly: 'Execute a Scenario' and 'record artifacts.' The parenthetical 'steps without bug semantics' hints at a distinction from ticket-style workflows, but it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative and relies on 'bug semantics' being understood.

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?

There is no direct guidance on when to use this tool versus run_ticket, validate_ticket, or the session_* tools. The parenthetical 'without bug semantics' implies that run_ticket is for bugs, but it is not explicit and leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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