live_replay_scenario

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses substantial behavior: real chrome.debugger and the user's real session/login, strict sequential execution, stopping at the first failed flow, output binding for later entries, and target-tab selection. It does not explicitly describe side effects on the live page or completion/return behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 but front-loaded with the core action and then adds necessary operational details. Every sentence contributes something important, though the output-binding sentence is complex and somewhat long.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, target tab selection, failure behavior, and output binding, which is strong. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits what the call returns and whether it blocks or waits for completion, which is relevant for a live replay operation.

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?

The schema covers 60% of parameters (dataset, project, session), but required scenarioId and the params object lack schema descriptions. The description adds some useful context by explaining that later entries' expression-mode params/postprocess can reference bound outputs, but it does not clarify how to supply scenario parameters or identify the scenario beyond the obvious implication.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Replay a whole scenario live' and explains that it runs the scenario's composed flows sequentially in the side panel's connected browser tab. It also distinguishes itself from flow-level replay by emphasizing 'whole scenario' and comparing its failure behavior to a single flow.

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 gives clear usage context: it 'Requires the side panel open and connected' and explains which tab it targets ('pinned in the side panel's header, or the browser's actual active tab if none is pinned'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the operational conditions are clear.

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