generate_scenario_variations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates variations but doesn't explain how (e.g., using AI models, randomization), what the output format is, whether it saves to the project, error handling, or rate limits. For a generative tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 purpose. There's no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It directly communicates the tool's function without fluff.

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 complexity (generative tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover output format, how variations are generated, integration with the project, or error conditions. For a tool that likely uses AI (implied by 'api_key' parameter), more context on behavior and limitations is needed.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific context beyond implying 'scenario' generation. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'style' and 'theme' interact) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 multiple variations of a scenario for comparison'. It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('scenario'), and scope ('multiple variations for comparison'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'generate_scenario' (which likely generates a single scenario) or 'generate_and_implement_scenario' (which likely includes implementation).

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 sibling tools like 'generate_scenario' or 'generate_and_implement_scenario', nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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