run_test_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the action. It doesn't mention side effects on game state, error handling, return values, or whether it's destructive. The agent cannot know what to expect beyond running steps.

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 sentence of 9 words with no fluff. The verb 'Run' is front-loaded, and the description is efficiently structured.

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?

Despite good annotations coverage, the description lacks crucial context: what does 'steps' entail (beyond schema), what is returned, how errors propagate, and relation to game lifecycle. For a multi-step orchestration tool, this is insufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (name, steps). The description adds no extra meaning about parameter usage or constraints. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Run' and the resource 'multi-step test scenario against the running game'. It distinguishes from siblings like simulate_gameplay_scenario and assert_node_state by focusing on running a sequence of steps.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like simulate_gameplay_scenario or run_stress_test. The description implies it's for multi-step tests but doesn't specify context or exclusions.

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