analyze_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 — and it mostly succeeds. It discloses the mutation behavior prominently (CREATES a session), explains the side effects of misuse (redundant session churn), and instructs the agent to save and reuse the returned session_id. It could note failure/error behavior, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Well-structured with a WORKFLOW block, numbered steps, and a highlighted CRITICAL note, with the key routing information (front door, don't call manage_session) front-loaded. Minor redundancy exists between the WORKFLOW summary and the numbered list, but every section earns its place for an orchestration tool.

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 complex orchestration tool, the description covers the full workflow: session creation, context detection, library auto-configuration, and session_id reuse across subsequent calls. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's responsibility. The only gap is explicit error/failure behavior.

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% with already-rich parameter text, including the deterministic desktop-forcing behavior of the context enum. Baseline 3 applies: the description confirms the workflow relationship to session_id but adds little parameter-level meaning 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+resource ('Analyze a natural-language scenario into structured intent and create a session') and explicitly names it as 'the single front door'. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling manage_session by warning against redundant session churn, so an agent can tell it apart without opening other schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('your FIRST tool call for any test scenario') and explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('do NOT also call manage_session(action="init")'). It names the alternative tool and the failure mode it avoids, leaving nothing to inference.

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