platform_eval_scenarios

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists actions but does not explain effects of each (e.g., confirm flag for delete, whether generate is synchronous, data persistence, permissions, or side effects). The opening sentence about Arch's capabilities is general and does not address this tool's behavior.

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 short and front-loaded with the API endpoint and actions, but the first sentence about Arch's general capabilities is tangential and may confuse the agent by implying broader scope. The second sentence is focused, but the overall structure lacks directness.

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 multiple actions and six parameters with nested objects, and there is no output schema. The description does not explain request/response formats, error handling, or the specific meaning of 'generate'. Given the complexity and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly without additional inference.

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 83%, so most parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, and it does not clarify how 'body', 'query', or 'confirm' map to the actions. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema handles most parameter meaning.

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 identifies the resource (eval scenarios) and the actions (list, get, create, update, delete, generate) and provides the API endpoint. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like platform_eval_personas or platform_eval_runs, though it does not explicitly name sibling exclusions.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool should be chosen. The only hint is the resource name, which is implicit rather than explicit guidance.

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