run_inference_scenario

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

Annotations are all false, providing no safety or side-effect hints. The description adds 'bounded' but does not disclose whether running the tool modifies server state, requires special permissions, or overwrites prior replays. Given that this is a non-read-only execution tool, more behavioral detail 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?

A single sentence with an action-first verb and no redundant words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, though it could include more useful detail without becoming verbose.

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?

For a tool that executes scenarios on servers, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the meaning of 'bounded replay', what happens during execution, how timeout_seconds and expected_plan_id are used, or any side effects. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing behavioral semantics.

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 0%, and the description mentions no parameters at all. The agent must rely solely on parameter names; 'expected_plan_id' is particularly unclear without explanation of its format or purpose. This is the lowest level of support.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Plan and execute' and names the resource 'one bounded replay' against a server, clearly distinguishing it from planning-only siblings like plan_inference_scenario. However, it does not explain what a 'replay' is or how it differs from run_inference_profile, so it falls short of full clarity.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The phrase 'managed or existing-local server' provides some context about deployment options but does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over run_inference_profile or plan_inference_scenario, nor any prerequisites.

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