sprut_run_scenario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Trigger / execute' implies a state-changing action, but nothing is said about side effects on devices/rooms, permissions required, whether execution is synchronous or fire-and-forget, or whether it can be aborted. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

Two short lines, verb and resource front-loaded, with the parameter note immediately following. The 'Args:' docstring boilerplate is slightly formal for a single parameter but costs nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The remaining gap is behavioral: a no-annotation mutation tool should disclose side effects or preconditions, and the description stops at how to address the scenario rather than what invoking it does.

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% and the only parameter is titled just 'Index'. The description supplies meaningful semantics — that index identifies a scenario and originates from sprut_list_scenarios — which the schema does not. It still omits format/type expectations (the schema types it as a string despite being an 'index'), so it partially but not fully compensates.

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?

States a specific verb ('Trigger / execute') and resource ('automation scenario'), and the qualifier 'by index' pins down the addressing mode. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the read-only sprut_list_scenarios sibling by naming it as the index source, though it never explicitly contrasts the two.

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?

The parenthetical '(from sprut_list_scenarios)' gives a real usage pointer — the agent knows to call the lister first to obtain the index. However, there is no guidance on when to run a scenario, what preconditions must hold, or any exclusions.

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