explore_and_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely important behavioral trait — the deliberate double execution of steps when both capture_assertions and validate are on — but omits file-writing side effects (output_dir), device acquisition behavior, and what happens on validation failure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a short rationale paragraph. Only minor flourish ("a hypothesis, not a test") that still conveys the reason for the double run, so the text is nearly all earning 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?

For an 8-parameter, no-annotation tool, the description covers purpose and the notable double-run behavior but says nothing about return values, error handling, or where the generated file lands beyond the output_dir schema entry. Adequate, with clear gaps for an agent deciding how to call and interpret it.

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 100%, so a 3 is the baseline. The description earns a point above baseline by explaining the interaction between two parameters — capture_assertions plus validate causes two runs — which the schema documents individually but never jointly.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: generating a replayable Maestro flow from a described exploration, then verifying it runs. That is far more informative than the bare name, though it never names how it differs from siblings like run_and_assert or run_parallel.

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?

Usage context is implied by the exploration-to-replayable-flow framing, and it explains the condition under which steps run twice (capture_assertions and validate both enabled). However, it gives no explicit when-to-use-this-instead guidance relative to run_and_assert or run_parallel, which are the obvious alternatives.

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