apiscen_to_http

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 'convert,' which implies a transformation, but does not specify whether it is a pure function, what side effects (if any) occur, what the output format is, or any error behavior. This is a significant gap for a conversion tool.

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 with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, and the core action is front-loaded. It could be slightly more informative without violating conciseness, but as-is it is well-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 having only one parameter, the description lacks essential context such as what constitutes a 'scenario outline,' what 'HTTP steps' entail, and what the output looks like. With no output schema and no annotations, this minimal description leaves the agent guessing about format, expected input syntax, and result structure.

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 schema already describes the only parameter ('scenario' as 'Scenario text') with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 clear verb ('Convert') and a specific resource ('scenario outline to HTTP steps'), which tells the agent what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like apiscen_generate, so it's not fully differentiated.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives (apiscen_status, apiscen_generate). There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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