run_scenario

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 only says 'Run' and constrains the path to allowlisted scenarios; it does not mention side effects, execution duration, whether a report is produced, or any permission requirements. For an execution tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The core action and key constraint are front-loaded, and every word contributes useful information.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely self-sufficient: it defines the purpose and parameter semantics. It is only incomplete regarding behavioral effects and explicit routing to alternatives, but those are secondary given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does this well by explaining that the scenario parameter is a single allowlisted path relative to the scenarios directory. It could be stronger with examples or allowed-value hints, but it provides the essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 names the exact action ('Run'), the target resource ('one allowlisted scenario path'), and the location convention ('relative to the scenarios directory'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_scenarios and soak_scenario.

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 usage for executing a single scenario, but it never explicitly states when to choose this over soak_scenario, run_visual_scenario, or other siblings. There are no alternative names or exclusion conditions.

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