Run a test

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: replay is deterministic/step-by-step and no AI is involved, plus the outcome is a pass/fail report. It omits whether the call blocks for the whole flow duration, typical runtime, what happens on failure (partial state left behind), and any permission or device prerequisites.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded before the clarifying note about AI. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the return value (pass/fail) but is thin on execution semantics and overhead. Most notably it never positions this tool against the closely named phone_test_start sibling, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.

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 coverage is 100%, so both path and serial are already documented in the schema; the description adds no extra semantics beyond confirming that a YAML flow file is what's replayed. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: replay a Maestro-format YAML flow on the phone, with step-by-step execution and pass/fail reporting. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling phone_test_start or phone_test_save, leaving the agent to guess which test entry point to pick.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Replay a Maestro-format YAML flow,' but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. phone_test_start, no prerequisites (device connected, app installed, flow already saved), and no guidance on when not to use it. 'No AI is involved' hints at a contrast with a smarter alternative without naming it.

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