scenario_control

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate mutability without destruction, but description adds no further behavioral context—no mention of state transitions, side effects, or whether actions are reversible. For a tool with no annotation details, more behavioral disclosure is needed.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and fails to front-load critical context about prerequisites or side effects. It is adequate but minimal.

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 only one parameter and an output schema, the description omits key context: what it means to start/restart/stop a scenario, how this differs from simulation control, and whether it assumes a scenario is already loaded via scenario_load. This leaves an agent without enough information for correct invocation.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions), so the description should clarify each enum value's effect. The description only lists the actions without explaining what 'start', 'restart', or 'stop' entail, leaving ambiguity.

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 verb (Start, restart, or stop) and the resource (loaded scenario). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like scenario_load or simulation_control by focusing on lifecycle actions of the loaded scenario.

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 (e.g., simulation_control for broader simulation control, scenario_load for loading). Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., scenario must be loaded) or when not to use it.

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