agentest_run_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool stops on first failure, automatically waits after actions, and conditionally includes the UI tree in the response. It also explains the screenFingerprint/screenChanged mechanism. This is thorough but could additionally describe what happens to the app state upon failure (e.g., partial changes).

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by organized lists of actions, assertions, and selectors. It is informative without being overly verbose. Every sentence adds value, though some lines (e.g., selector details) could be slightly tightened.

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 (multiple action types, selector options, response behavior) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers most critical aspects: how to execute flows, behavior on failure, auto-wait, response structure (screenFingerprint/screenChanged), and selector syntax. It is nearly complete but could explicitly outline the full response shape for agent clarity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it lists all available actions and assertions, explains selector priority (ref fastest), and provides example syntax. This helps an agent understand how to construct the 'steps' array beyond what the schema's formal descriptions offer.

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 'Execute a batch of UI actions and assertions. Stops on first failure.' This specific verb+resource combination unambiguously communicates the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like agentest_get_ui_tree (which only retrieves the tree) and agentest_screenshot (which captures an image).

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 clear context for usage: it explains how to target elements using refs from the last tree snapshot versus traditional selectors, advises against adding 'wait' or 'wait_for_stable' steps due to auto-waiting, and describes when to reuse refs based on the screenChanged flag. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for single actions or non-UI tasks) relative to siblings.

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