generate_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'using AI' but does not state whether the tool is read-only, creates persistent data, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The side effects and operational characteristics remain unclarified.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose without wasted words. It is concise and structured effectively, earning a top score.

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?

The tool has three simple parameters and no output schema, so the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about what the generated scenario looks like, how genre and length affect the result, or the form of the AI response. These gaps leave the agent with incomplete expectations for the tool's behavior.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (prompt, genre, length) with 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing that the prompt is a natural language description. Since the schema covers the meaning, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('generate'), a clear resource ('game scenario'), and the source ('natural language description using AI'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_map or create_event, which target more granular elements.

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 implies the tool is for turning natural language into a game scenario, giving a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the boundary versus siblings like create_map or apply_template.

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