test_run_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'test harness mode enabled' but doesn't explain its effects, whether the process blocks, output expectations, side effects, or interaction with other test tools. This is insufficient for a potentially long-running action.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and condition, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and the presence of numerous sibling test tools, the description is underspecified. It lacks information about return values, side effects, how 'test harness mode' behaves, and how this tool relates to other test tools. This could lead to incorrect invocation or expectations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters clearly. The description adds minimal semantic value by linking 'specific scenario' to the scene parameter, but this is also present in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action 'Run' with the resource 'the game' and the distinctive condition 'test harness mode enabled', distinguishing it from run_project and other test_* siblings. It precisely conveys the tool's objective.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_project, test_validate_scenario, or get_debug_output. The description implies usage for test scenarios but lacks explicit context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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