generate_scenarios

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context like 'using sampling' and 'explicit fallback,' but does not elaborate on what the fallback is or when sampling is used, so the added transparency is limited.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core action and distinguishing traits.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are already covered. The description is minimal but does not mention what the explicit fallback is or how this tool fits into the overall workflow (e.g., after register_target). While not incomplete, it leaves important workflow context implicit.

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 clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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's purpose: to generate task-oriented multi-tool journeys (scenarios) using sampling, with an explicit fallback. It uses a strong verb ('generate') and a specific resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_targets or inspect_target.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description does not mention that target_id must come from register_target, nor does it contrast with run_static_checks or run_target_tool. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the schema.

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