run_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses non-obvious behavior: execution happens in a real browser and produces an annotated video, Playwright trace, screenshots, and logs before returning per-criterion verdicts. It doesn't cover side effects on the target site or execution duration, but the core behavioral profile is clearly stated.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action, the second states the outputs, and the third gives mode guidance. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 high complexity of the schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what gets executed, what artifacts are produced, and how mode selection should differ before vs after a fix. The presence of an output schema relieves it from explaining return values. It could mention retrieval of artifacts or asynchronous behavior, but those are inferable from sibling tools.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for the options.mode parameter via the reproduce/verify guidance. For the ticket parameter it mostly repeats the type name, and it doesn't explain the structure or required fields of BugTicket beyond what the schema already defines. This is a partial but not complete compensation.

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 names a specific verb ('Execute'), a specific resource ('BugTicket'), and the concrete environment ('real browser'). It also states the unique output ('verdict per acceptance criterion'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_scenario or get_run.

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 operational guidance: 'Use mode=reproduce before a fix and mode=verify after it.' This is actionable context for invoking the tool correctly. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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