strest_run_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful execution semantics: steps are chained through variables and responses are validated with schema assertions. However, it omits critical traits for a tool that issues live HTTP requests — side effects on the target API, authentication needs, and whether execution aborts on the first failed assertion.

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 dense sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It packs three distinct capabilities into minimal space without becoming a run-on list.

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 two-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the input intent but not the outcome — an agent cannot tell what a run returns (pass/fail per assertion, step traces) or how failures surface. Adding return shape and failure behavior would complete it.

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% with two well-described parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no guidance on the precedence or mutual exclusivity of the inline `scenario` object and the `scenarioPath` file, which is the one ambiguity the schema does not resolve.

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 ("Executes") and a precise resource ("declarative multi-step REST API workflow scenario") plus two defining capabilities: variable chaining and schema assertions. It is clearly a scenario runner rather than the sibling strest_template, but it never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly.

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 indication of when to reach for this tool versus strest_template, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The description also gives no hint about when to pass an inline `scenario` object versus a `scenarioPath`, leaving the choice entirely to inference.

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