godot_stagehand_scenario

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at execution plus output parsing, but says nothing about side effects on the project, whether the run is isolated, how long it may take, or what the parsed results look like. Only a partial behavioral picture.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the brevity here borders on under-specification for a tool that runs scenarios and diffs output.

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?

A no-annotation, no-output-schema execution tool with fully undocumented parameters needs substantially more explanation than this single sentence provides. An agent lacks enough to call it confidently or interpret results.

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 0% and the description doesn't compensate: it never clarifies whether 'scenario' is a name, path, or identifier, nor does it mention the 'timeout' parameter (bounds 1-900s) at all. Both parameters remain semantically undocumented.

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 ('Run') and resource ('configured Stagehand scenario') plus the post-processing ('parse JUnit/visual diff outputs'). It is clearly distinguishable from the inspect/validate siblings, though 'Stagehand' is unexplained jargon that leaves the domain slightly opaque.

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 indication of when to use this versus siblings like godot_run_check, what a 'configured' scenario means, or any prerequisites. The agent must infer the selection context entirely.

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