execute_scenario

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

The description discloses the two-step process (validate then execute) and the return type (validation + run result), but does not mention side effects, state changes, or logging. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides only basic transparency.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and immediate result. Every word is necessary; no wasted content.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema (not shown). The description covers the core functionality and return type, but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., project initialization), error cases, or how to interpret the validation result. Given the sibling set, more context on sequencing with other tools would be helpful.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It specifies that scenario_id comes from .agent-sim/scenarios/*.jsonl files and project_root identifies the project, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not explain formats, constraints, or how to find valid scenario IDs.

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 tool validates then executes a scenario from a specific directory (.agent-sim/scenarios/*.jsonl) and returns both validation and run result. This distinguishes it from siblings like validate_scenario (validation only) and run_scenario (likely execution without validation).

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 description implies the tool performs validation before execution but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like execute_scenarios (batch) or run_scenario. No guidance on prerequisites or alternatives.

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