run_baseline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether capturing baselines is destructive (overwrites existing), requires authentication, or any side effects. The single sentence offers no behavioral insights beyond the basic action.

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?

While extremely concise (one short sentence), the description is under-specified. Conciseness should not come at the cost of missing critical information. It fails to earn its place by leaving out essential details for correct invocation.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, prerequisites, or how to interpret results. The agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on this description alone.

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 0% and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (project, environment, scenarios, browsers). Without parameter details, the agent cannot correctly fill in values. The description adds zero value beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 'Capture new VRT baselines' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('capture') and resource ('VRT baselines'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_vrt' which likely runs tests. However, it doesn't explain what 'baselines' are, leaving some ambiguity for unfamiliar users.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_vrt' or 'explain_vrt_failure'. The description lacks context on prerequisites or appropriate scenarios, forcing the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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