stagehand_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that execution is agent-driven and returns structured pass/fail/blocked results per assert. Yet it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., navigation, state changes) or whether a session is required, leaving behavioral details partially undisclosed.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.

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 schema covers parameter semantics thoroughly, and the description explains the tool's purpose and result format. However, it omits prerequisites like session usage and does not discuss how this relates to sibling tools, leaving some contextual gaps for a complex tool.

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 no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 executes a multi-step test scenario using the Stagehand agent, with specific arrange/act/assert structure. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stagehand_act (single action) and stagehand_navigate by emphasizing the multi-step scenario nature.

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 implies usage for multi-step test scenarios and mentions returns per assert step, giving context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternative tools or exclude single-action cases, so it lacks direct exclusions but provides clear context.

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