run_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Run a UI operation flow.' It does not mention side effects (navigation, state changes), execution behavior (sequential, wait conditions), failure handling, or return values.

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 that directly states the tool's core purpose without fluff or repetition. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 tool's complexity (ordered step flows, many optional parameters, wait behavior), the description is too thin. It relies entirely on the schema for context and offers no high-level guidance about execution semantics, suitable scenarios, or expected outcomes.

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 the schema already documents all parameters in detail. The description adds only 'using DebugBridge IDs or labels,' which is already reflected in the id/label property descriptions, so no meaningful semantic value is added beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run a UI operation flow against the current app page using DebugBridge IDs or labels.' It distinguishes from sibling single-action tools (tap_element, set_text, etc.) by emphasizing 'flow,' though it doesn't explicitly contrast with those alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling single-action tools. The name and description imply multi-step flows, but there is no stated context, exclusions, or mention of alternatives.

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