execute_scenarios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does but does not mention side effects, destructive potential, authentication needs, or other behavioral aspects. For a tool that likely mutates state, 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 sentences, efficiently front-loaded with purpose and key usage details. No superfluous words; every sentence adds necessary information.

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 the complexity of running multiple scenarios with optional filtering, the description covers the main choices but lacks specifics on error handling, behavior when no files are valid, or non-functional aspects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but comparison with similar tools is minimal.

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 compensate. It explains two of three parameters: scenario_ids (omit to run all) and tag (optional filter). However, the required 'project_root' is not described, relying on its self-explanatory name. This adds some value but is incomplete.

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 'Execute multiple scenarios', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'execute_scenario' (singular) by the plural form, and further clarifies behavior by explaining that omitting scenario_ids runs all valid files.

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 provides clear context: 'Omit scenario_ids to run all valid files; optional tag filter (e.g. smoke).' This gives guidance on when to omit parameters. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like 'run_scenario' or 'execute_scenario', though the plural name implies usage for multiple scenarios.

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