explain_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that a match does not imply an alert, that it shows internal processing, and requires a running scenario stack. Does not detail output format but is otherwise transparent about behavior.

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?

Four sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with main purpose. Every sentence provides essential information (purpose, constraint, alternative, prerequisite). Very concise.

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 no output schema, the description explains enough to use the tool: purpose, constraints, prerequisites, and alternative. Could mention output format, but not critical for usage. Sufficient for a diagnostic tool.

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 100% with self-explanatory parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool shows how CrowdSec processes a single log line (extraction and matching), and differentiates from the sibling `test_scenario` tool, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly says MUST NEVER be called with multiple log lines, directs to `test_scenario` for alert testing, and notes the prerequisite that the scenario stack must be running. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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