all the tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the action without detailing traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if sessions are persistent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. It mentions recording actions but doesn't explain how recording works (e.g., automatic capture of user interactions), leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse while conveying essential 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?

Given the tool's complexity (starting a session for code generation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like session lifecycle, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond its basic purpose.

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 fully documents the single 'options' parameter and its nested properties. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as default behaviors or examples, resulting in a baseline score of 3 where the schema handles 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Start a new code generation session') and the resource ('to record Playwright actions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'clear_codegen_session' and 'end_codegen_session' which manage existing sessions rather than initiating new ones. It precisely communicates the tool's function without redundancy.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to start a session versus using 'get_codegen_session' to check an existing one, or prerequisites like needing an active Playwright context. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, offering only basic implied usage.

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