run_tour

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that execution happens inside the open browser, uses auto mode, and returns success/failure with the failing step description. This covers the main behavioral surface, though it leaves 'auto mode' and potential side effects on browser state implicit.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and workflow position, followed by a concise parameter note and result summary. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The core purpose, input option, and result behavior are covered, and an output schema exists. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the unexplained name/timeout parameters and the unstated dependency on an already-open browser or existing recording leave notable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains steps_js; name and timeout are never described, forcing the agent to infer their meanings from defaults and parameter names.

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 gives a concrete verb ('Replay'), a resource ('recorded actions as an Odoo web_tour'), and an explicit purpose ('validate an export_tour result before adding it to a module'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling export_tour, which is the recording counterpart.

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?

It clearly states the intended workflow position: use after export_tour and before adding the tour to a module. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the contextual framing is sufficiently narrow to guide an agent's selection.

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