Generate a synthetic IMU, BLE, and ground truth trace for a scenario, merging overrides into the scenario config to test one hypothesis at a time.
Generate a synthetic trace (IMU, BLE, ground truth) for a scenario.
overrides is merged into the scenario JSON, e.g. {"ble": {"dead_beacons": ["C3"]}} or
{"ble": {"device_offset_db": -6}}, to test one hypothesis at a time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | ||
| scenario | Yes | ||
| overrides | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says a trace is generated. It does not disclose whether files are written to disk, whether the operation is deterministic with a seed, whether an existing scenario is required, or what the output looks like. For a generator with mutation-like side effects, this is a significant 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?
The description is short, front-loaded with the core action, and the override examples earn their place by clarifying merge behavior. The second sentence is slightly dense but not wasteful.
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 three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition is incomplete. An agent knows what is generated but not what inputs mean, where the output goes, or what side effects occur, making correct invocation uncertain.
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 explains the `overrides` object and its merge semantics with concrete examples, but leaves `scenario` (string) and `seed` (integer/null) completely undefined — the agent cannot tell whether `scenario` is an ID, name, path, or JSON payload, nor what the seed controls.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a synthetic trace (IMU, BLE, ground truth) for a scenario,' which tells an agent exactly what the tool produces. It does not differentiate from related siblings such as run_replay or ab_test, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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 phrase 'to test one hypothesis at a time' and the override examples imply an experimentation use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of run_replay, ab_test, or compare_filters. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.