Generate scenario

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

Annotations indicate it's not read-only or destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: blocking behavior (30s-2min), return values (uuid or batch uuids), and structured error on failure. No rate limits or auth details are disclosed, but overall adds value beyond annotations.

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 compact (two sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or vague statements.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values. It covers essential parameters (type, tags, num_scenarios, tag_pool) but omits explicit mention of some batch-specific parameters. However, schema fills the gaps, making it sufficiently complete for a user.

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 78%, so schema provides most parameter details. The description adds context about batch mode and tag_pool requirement, but does not elaborate on parameters like total_tags, include_tags, or max_tags_per_npc beyond what the schema covers.

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 generates a new test scenario, specifies the scenario types (info_exchange or interview), and mentions optional parameters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_scenario and evaluate_agent by focusing on creation.

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 guidance on batch mode (num_scenarios > 1 requires tag_pool) and typical blocking time, but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives like list_compatible_tags for parameter selection.

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