run_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so unusually well: it discloses that OPEN steps execute live with no capture (window-resolved pass condition), that other action steps re-target a captured frame replayed GUID-rebound to the live session, and that frames are matched by marker and pinned via ordinals. The failure mode without action_capture is stated outright.

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?

Purpose and the feature_text/scenario_json source are front-loaded, and no sentence is pure filler — each adds execution semantics. However, the prose is a dense wall of parentheticals, backticks and guillemets that is hard to scan for the key distinctions.

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 10-parameter tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the execution model, capture requirements and step-support matrix are covered well. The main gap is the prerequisite chain — it says 'against a running /TESTCLIENT' but never points at launch_test_client/attach_test_client, and under-explains the remaining connection/session parameters.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for action_capture, action_input_value, action_ordinals, and feature_text (multi-scenario → callees), but leaves host, port, capture_dir, single_session, and manager_templates entirely undocumented. Roughly half the parameters remain opaque.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Run a scenario ... through the native Python TestManager against a running 1C /TESTCLIENT') and the multi-scenario/callee registration detail implicitly separates it from the step-level sibling run_step. An agent can tell this is a full scenario runner, not a single-step executor, without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a clear conditional ('to EXECUTE those pass ``action_capture``') and an explicit exclusion ('Without ``action_capture`` only read/assert/data/skip/subscenario/open steps run; other action steps report unsupported'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It never names an alternative tool such as run_step or run_write_scenario_tool, so the routing is inferred rather than stated.

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