run_vrt

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without revealing what happens during execution (e.g., synchronous/asynchronous, required inputs, side effects, return values). Minimal transparency.

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 sentence, which is concise but too terse. It sacrifices necessary context for brevity. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one omits critical information, making it under-specified rather than appropriately sized.

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) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to fill parameters, or how it fits into the workflow. Very inadequate.

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 input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage and no enums. The description adds no information about the parameters' purposes, valid values, or formats. It is entirely uninformative for parameter understanding.

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 action and resource: 'Run a VRT comparison against baselines.' It specifies that it runs a VRT (Visual Regression Testing) comparison, which differentiates it from siblings like 'run_baseline' that create baselines. However, the acronym VRT may not be universally understood, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish from 'compare_runs', which might have similar functionality.

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 like 'run_baseline' or 'compare_runs'. There are no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., baselines must exist), nor any context about ideal scenarios for its use.

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