Run Playwright test and collect failure artifacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool executes an npx playwright command, returns passed/failed status, resolvedContext (with enumerated values), artifacts, and enforces a retry stop-loss policy. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention side effects or environment dependencies, but these are less critical for a test runner.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the command, then outputs, then retry policy. Every sentence conveys essential information without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 tool with no output schema, the description identifies the primary outputs (passed/failed, resolvedContext with allowed values, artifacts, shouldStop) and references the downstream consumer (analyze_and_fix_selector). It covers the core usage scenario and termination condition. It could be more complete by describing the artifact format or error handling, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (tag, projectRoot, attemptNumber), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by illustrating the grep usage (@<tag>) and explaining the retry stop-loss behavior for attemptNumber, but this largely overlaps with schema descriptions. No significant new parameter semantics are introduced.

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 action ('Run npx playwright test --grep @<tag>'), the resource (a Playwright test tagged with the provided tag), and the purpose (collect failure artifacts for analyze_and_fix_selector). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_failure_artifacts by emphasizing that it actually executes the test, not just retrieves artifacts.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to run a tagged test and obtain failure artifacts for downstream analysis. It also provides an explicit stopping condition (shouldStop at attemptNumber >= 3) with human escalation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools (e.g., get_failure_artifacts) or specify when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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