run_visual_scenario

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the scenario is allowlisted and contains VisualProbe steps; it does not disclose side effects, whether test artifacts are produced, auth needs, failure behavior, or any consequences of running the scenario.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds information about scope or constraints.

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?

With no annotations and no schema description coverage, the tool needs more contextual support than this one-liner provides. The agent is left to infer valid scenario sources, execution effects, and how this relates to sibling tools like list_scenarios or read_visual_report.

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 'scenario' parameter has no schema-level documentation. The description adds some meaning by saying the value must be an allowlisted scenario containing VisualProbe steps, but it does not specify the expected format, identifier type, or how to discover valid scenario names.

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 specific verb ('Run'), a resource ('scenario'), and two distinguishing constraints ('allowlisted' and 'containing VisualProbe steps'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like run_scenario, soak_scenario, and the read/report tools.

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 use for VisualProbe-based scenarios and hints at an allowlist prerequisite, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over run_scenario or soak_scenario, nor does it direct the agent to list_scenarios for valid inputs. Usage context is present but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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