generate_scenarios

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'generate', which suggests producing output, but fails to disclose whether files are created, what the return value is, whether analysis data is consumed, or any side effects and prerequisites beyond the implied prior analysis.

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 sentence with no unnecessary elaboration, and it leads with the core purpose. The '[mode: real]' prefix is arguably superfluous, but the overall text is concise and front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, one sentence is drastically insufficient. The description omits prerequisites, return values, side effects, and parameter usage, making it incomplete for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 does not explain any of the five parameters (projectPath, coverage, testTypes, focusAreas, maxScenarios). The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema definitions, so the agent cannot infer parameter semantics.

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 tool generates test scenarios from an analyzed app structure, with a specific verb and output resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_test_plan, but the source dependency on analyze_app_structure adds some distinction.

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 phrase 'from analyzed app structure' implies the tool should be used after analyze_app_structure, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned, leaving usage decisions mostly to inference.

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