run

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, suggesting mutation but no destruction. The description does not add behavioral context such as required permissions, side effects, or rate limits. With sparse annotations, more transparency is needed. Score 2 for insufficient disclosure.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it packs multiple actions without structure. It could be more effective with clearer separation and front-loaded key content. Score 3 for adequate but not optimal conciseness.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of the workflow or expected outcomes, the description is critically incomplete. It does not cover what happens upon 'start' vs 'status' vs 'finish', nor does it explain the evidence manifest concept. Score 1 for severe incompleteness.

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%, and the description does not clarify the meaning or usage of any of the 7 parameters, including 'action', 'label', 'status', etc. The tool's behavior depends on these parameters, but no semantic help is provided. Score 1 for failing to compensate.

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?

Description lists possible actions (start, inspect, annotate, finish) on an 'evidence manifest for an exploratory run,' but the term 'evidence manifest' is unclear. The purpose is somewhat vague and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools that handle specific browser/mobile actions. Score 3 for vague purpose.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings, which include browser and mobile observation/action tools. The description does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Score 2 for no usage guidance.

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