scenario_modeling

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'what-if scenario analysis' which implies read-only or computational behavior, but fails to specify if it modifies data, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or outputs results. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that processes files and scenarios.

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, efficient sentence that states the core function without unnecessary details. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be more front-loaded with specific resource information.

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 the complexity of a scenario analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., results, reports, errors) or how it interacts with the data, leaving the agent uncertain about behavioral outcomes and usage context.

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%, so the input schema fully documents parameters like 'filePath', 'sheet', and 'scenarios'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the structure of 'scenarios' or file formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Perform what-if scenario analysis with multiple assumptions' states the general purpose but lacks specificity about what resource it operates on (e.g., financial models, datasets) or how it differs from similar tools like 'budget_variance_analysis' or 'dcf_analysis'. It's vague about the exact nature of the analysis.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'budget_variance_analysis' or 'dcf_analysis', which might also involve scenario modeling. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for application.

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