run_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'Run a scenario manually.' It does not disclose whether the run is synchronous, whether it triggers a job, if it requires permissions, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that likely executes an 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 very concise (one sentence) but lacks substance. While brevity is valued, it comes at the cost of missing critical information. Every sentence should earn its place; this one barely does.

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 tool has 2 required parameters, no output schema, and numerous sibling tools (like run_recipe, get_scenario_run_history), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the result of a run, whether it is blocking, or how it relates to other scenario operations.

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% and both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema itself is clear, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No further detail is provided about parameter constraints or formats.

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 verb 'Run' and resource 'a scenario', with the qualifier 'manually' distinguishing it from automated triggers. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like run_recipe or explain what 'run' entails in terms of execution.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_scenario_trigger for automated runs, get_scenario_run_history for past runs). There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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