feature_behavior_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'build' but does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies any state, what permissions are required, or any rate limits. The lack of detail leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured but could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context about what constitutes a 'behavior map', how the tool uses the parameters to build it, and how it integrates with other tools. For a tool with multiple filtering parameters and 57 siblings, the description is insufficient for reliable selection.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, earning the baseline score of 3. No improvement or degradation.

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 builds scenario behavior maps specifying preconditions, actions, and expectations. It identifies the verb ('build') and the resource ('scenario behavior maps'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'scenario_similarity_map' or 'common_usage_map', which marginally reduces specificity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about when to invoke it, such as for analyzing scenario flows or preparing test generation inputs. Without usage conditions or exclusions, agents may misuse it.

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