generate_scenario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Stating that it returns 'structured suggestions' implies the operation is non-persistent, which is useful, but it does not clarify whether anything is written to the project, whether it requires an open/loaded project, or any limits.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, purpose front-loaded before the downstream-tool hint. Every clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter generator with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about the returned structure and whether project state is touched. It covers the purpose and downstream usage but leaves the output/persistence question open.

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%, and the scope enum is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that theme and genre drive generation, adding little beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Generate a game scenario outline') and names the inputs (theme, genre). It is clearly different from create_entity or create_map, though it does not distinguish itself from the similar generator siblings generate_quest and generate_dialogue.

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?

It implies usage by noting the output 'can be implemented using other tools (create_entity, create_map, create_event)'. This gives a workflow hint but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to generate_quest or generate_dialogue.

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