tc_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so substantially: it explains file path resolution, the error handling for record_finish, the lost_actions and no_effect fields, readback scope, and the replay step counting nuances (played vs ok, changed). This is far more than typical. A 4 is appropriate because it is candid about failure modes and semantics, though it does not cover authentication or concurrency constraints.

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 dense and front-loaded with the purpose, but it is long and some sentences are nested with complex clauses. The per-action documentation is necessary but could be more structured. It is not bloated, but it could be more scannable.

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 complexity (multi-action tool, 4 parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the workflow, error conditions, return value nuances, and connection handling. It does not describe the exact shape of the return object (e.g., whether it returns a dict with 'ok', 'uilog', etc.), but it references those fields by name. The lack of an output schema is somewhat mitigated by field-level descriptions.

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, and it does: it explains path resolution (server working directory, absolute path echoed), the uilog parameter format (XML scenario), and connection_id selection. The action parameter's enum is already in the schema, but the description adds semantics for each action. The only minor gap is not describing default behaviors when parameters are omitted.

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 first sentence states clearly what the tool does: record and replay UI scenarios. Each action is enumerated with its own specific verb and semantics. The scoring is 4 rather than 5 because it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like tc_session or tc_form, though the resource (UI scenarios) is clear.

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 strong usage context: record_start/record_finish/run_scenario workflow is described in record_start and record_finish. It also notes that connection_id is required with multiple clients, and points to tc_session(action='list_connections') for finding connections. The only gap is the absence of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tools for similar tasks.

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