browser_playbook_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions recursive execution and self-healing, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, or error handling. Still, it adds significant context beyond the schema.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: 'Replay a playbook (with self-heal) using the provided inputs' is the core function, followed by two key details (recursive execution and return value). No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (recursive execution, self-heal), the description covers the main actions and output. It lacks details on error handling, prerequisites, or performance implications, but given the simple input schema, it is fairly complete. An output schema does not exist, but the description mentions the return value (verdict + evidence).

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 50%, with only the 'inputs' parameter described in the schema. The description does not add any explanation for the 'id' parameter or clarify the input structure beyond what the schema provides. It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool replays a playbook with self-healing, executing composes/next chains recursively, and returning a verdict and evidence. It uses a specific verb ('replay') and resource ('playbook'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_playbook_list or browser_playbook_save by focusing on execution.

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 implies usage for running a saved playbook but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_workflow_run. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it. Given many siblings, more explicit guidelines would be beneficial.

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