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

Annotations already declare this tool read-only and idempotent, and the description meaningfully supplements that by explaining progressive filling of results, the wait-expiry return behavior, has-flag semantics, Playwright runner log placement, and screenshot ordering. This is rich behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide.

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 dense but every sentence contributes operational guidance: core purpose, polling advice, completion condition, drill-down guidance, and output interpretation details. It is structured with the most important usage instruction early, followed by progressively deeper behavioral notes.

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 an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to use it correctly: when to call it, how long to wait, how to detect completion, how to interpret has-flags, and how to understand screenshot and log placement. No critical operational context is missing.

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 67%, with scriptRunId and waitSeconds already documented in the schema. The tool description adds practical context around waitSeconds usage, but projectId remains undocumented and the description does not add meaning for that parameter. Overall, the schema carries most of the parameter documentation burden.

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 identifies the resource (a play) and the action (get current state), and further specifies it returns per-step results and logs. It differentiates itself from related tools by referencing play_script and get_step_detail, so an agent can select it correctly.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: after play_script, call this with waitSeconds instead of polling. It also states when results are complete (running is false) and advises drilling down with get_step_detail only where has-flags are true.

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