run_smoke_tests

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial context: environment prerequisites, licence tier requirement, the graceful degradation to dev_only: true when the harness is absent, and the fact that the process tree is killed on timeout. It does not however describe the exact diagnostic line format or the pass/fail payload shape.

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?

Front-loads the most important gating fact (the desktop app is required / not installed) before describing behavior. There is mild redundancy in restating licence requirements at the end after the checkout prerequisite, but overall it is efficient.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return contract reasonably well ('pass or fail with the diagnostic line', plus the dev_only fallback). Prerequisites, licence needs and timeout behavior are all covered, leaving only minor gaps about the exact return payload structure.

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 both 'spec' and 'timeout_s' are already documented in the schema, including defaults and the timeout kill semantics. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource ('start the Playwright smoke test of the app interface') and enumerates the exact scope: visual regression and clean console, headless, mocked data. An agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling tools like diagnostic_explain or tail_app_log.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage to development ('Development only') and states the prerequisite conditions (source checkout with test harness, Atelier or Portfolio licence) and the when-not case (installed app returns dev_only: true and starts nothing). It does not name alternative diagnostic tools, but the gating conditions are clear enough to route correctly.

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