Reflect: Create Test

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

Annotations are all false, giving no safety profile, so the description carries the burden. It states the create operation plainly and adds substantial behavioral context: deviceProfile requirements per type, the ordering constraint for web tests, step-type selection guidance, exact-match semantics for text-validation, and detailed variable/function resolution behavior. It does not mention return values or side effects, but nothing contradicts annotations.

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 opening sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the description is bloated: it re-lists every parameter with text copied from the input schema, including a massive multi-line block on '${...}' variable syntax that already lives in the schema's steps description. Much of the content is redundant and could be replaced with a pointer to the schema.

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?

Input-side guidance is comprehensive: required parameters, step ordering, per-type deviceProfile rules, step-type best practices, and variable syntax are all covered. However, there is no output schema and the description never states what the tool returns (e.g., the created test's ID or confirmation), and it does not mention failure modes or idempotency behavior. This is a notable gap for a creation 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 baseline is 3. The description's 'Parameters' section largely duplicates the schema descriptions verbatim, including the long variable-syntax text already present in the steps schema. It adds no new parameter meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 opens with 'Create a new Reflect test which contains an ordered list of steps,' a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this creation tool from sibling Reflect tools like reflect_list_tests, reflect_get_test_detail, and reflect_run_test, which operate on existing tests.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusion criteria. The creation purpose is implied by the verb, and the description offers rich guidance on how to construct steps (prefer selector-based steps over 'prompt' steps, web tests must start with 'browser-navigate'), but it never names sibling tools or conditions for choosing this tool over them.

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