generate_scenario

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 mentions using Gemini AI, implying external API calls and potential rate limits or authentication needs (via api_key parameter), but doesn't explicitly state these behaviors. It also doesn't describe output format, error handling, or whether the generation modifies the project (e.g., writes files). For a tool with no annotations and complex behavior, this is inadequate.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Generate a complete RPG game scenario') and lists key components concisely. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (AI-driven generation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., API usage, file modifications), output expectations, and error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should compensate more to guide the agent effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'project_path' as 'Path to the RPG Maker MZ project directory'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., how 'theme' and 'style' influence generation) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Generate a complete RPG game scenario using Gemini AI' with specific components listed (story, maps, characters, events, items). It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_scenario_variations' or 'generate_and_implement_scenario' by focusing on initial generation rather than variations or implementation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'autonomous_create_game'), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an RPG Maker MZ project), compare to siblings like 'generate_and_implement_scenario' (which might include implementation), or specify scenarios where it's preferred over other generation tools. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.

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