run_scenario_test

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of falling back to simulation, which is valuable. However, it does not mention side effects (real subprocess may mutate environment), permissions, failure behavior, or return format, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, efficient sentence front-loading the hybrid mode. It earns its place without fluff, though it could be slightly expanded to cover key parameters without losing conciseness.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, making it moderately complex. The description only covers the execution mode and omits crucial context like return values, failure handling, prerequisite setup, and meaning of 'stored scenario', leaving agents underinformed.

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 provides no parameter details whatsoever. It does not explain projectPath, scenarioId, platform, device, retries, or timeout, so the agent must infer meaning purely from parameter names and types, which is insufficient.

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 the specific verb 'Run' with a clear resource ('a stored scenario') and adds the distinctive hybrid mode ('real subprocess where possible, falls back to simulated'), which differentiates it from siblings like run_simulation and run_stress_test.

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 clear usage context: this is for running stored scenarios with real execution when possible and simulation as a fallback. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the mode hint provides enough context for an agent to decide.

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