run_scenario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the step cycle (emit, wait, expect) and that it asserts control states. It does not discuss side effects (e.g., does it modify device state?), error handling, or required permissions. The behavior is partially transparent but has gaps.

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 concise, with a clear one-line summary followed by a structured explanation of the step format. It contains no fluff, though it could be slightly more organized (e.g., bullet points) but is effective.

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 has an output schema (not shown), the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks information about error conditions, what happens on assertion failure, or performance implications. For a complex testing tool, this leaves some gaps.

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?

The single parameter 'steps_json' has 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining the expected JSON format in detail (step objects with emit, event, wait, expect fields). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema which only shows 'type: string'.

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's purpose: 'Drive the device through a scripted scenario and assert control states — UI testing over the mesh, no XCUITest.' It uses specific verbs and describes the resource (device and control states). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the scripted scenario nature and the mesh vs XCUITest context.

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 provides a clear step format and context ('UI testing over the mesh, no XCUITest'), which implies when to use (mesh-based UI testing) and when not to (XCUITest). However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when to choose other tools, but the format and purpose are sufficiently clear.

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