create_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the 'in memory' behavior and return fields, providing key behavioral context. However, it does not specify behavior on duplicate names (overwrite/error) or side effects on existing scenarios. Still, it adds significant value beyond a bare description.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose, a structured parameter list, and a return note. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff. The front-loaded purpose immediately orients the agent.

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 complexity (4 params, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers the core: name, duration, time step, and return. It misses context like reliance on an AFSIM installation and the need to later save the scenario. However, it is adequate for an experienced agent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'Unique name', 'Optional human-readable description', and units for numeric parameters (seconds, defaults). This meaningfully goes beyond the schema's titles and types, though it could include constraints like positive duration.

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 'Create a new AFSIM scenario in memory,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like load_scenario (file-based) and generate_scenario_from_prompt (AI-generated), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 creating a new in-memory scenario but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., before adding components) or when to use load_scenario or generate_scenario_from_prompt instead. The 'in memory' hint is helpful but insufficient for clear decision-making.

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