create_scenario

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

Since annotations are absent, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create' without detailing side effects, persistence, permissions, or what happens to existing scenarios. No additional behavioral traits are revealed.

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 fluff. However, it lacks any structural elements like bullets or sections that could make the information more scannable. For the bare purpose, it is efficient but not richly structured.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it manages state, or any operational context. A user/agent needs far more detail to use this effectively.

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 baseline is 3. The description's 'customizable parameters' adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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 'Create a cybersecurity training scenario' with a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous about the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like simulate_attack. The name itself strongly implies its unique role.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. Sibling tools like simulate_attack or investigate_incident are not referenced, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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