play_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a workflow (open pages, run browser steps, return data), which is useful, but omits important traits: side effects of writing to output_dir, authentication needs, whether recipes can perform destructive actions, and error handling. It is better than a bare verb but still incomplete.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a high-level summary and avoids redundant phrasing.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the definition is incomplete for a tool that executes arbitrary YAML recipes. It lacks usage guidance versus the sibling tool, parameter documentation (especially output_dir), and any behavioral safety context, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 should compensate. It implies that 'recipe_path' points to a YAML recipe file, adding minimal meaning. However, 'output_dir' is never mentioned, and no format, default behavior, or constraints are explained for either parameter.

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 ('Execute') and resource ('YAML recipe file'), and outlines the outcome: open pages, run browser steps, return extracted data. It is clear on its own but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'play_steps', which appears to execute steps directly rather than a recipe file.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., recipe format, required permissions) or alternatives such as 'play_steps'. The agent is left to infer that this tool is for recipe files while the sibling is for raw steps.

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