scout_playbook

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 states 'Takes no input and touches no browser,' making the read-only, side-effect-free nature clear. It also warns that calling it again is unnecessary and that it duplicates the skill text.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: content, usage timing/alternative, and input/side-effect constraints. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information appears first.

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?

For a no-input, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what the tool returns, when to invoke it, how it relates to the skill alternative, and that it has no browser side effects. Nothing an agent needs to call or follow it is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already says nothing is needed. The description adds the explicit confirmation 'Takes no input,' which aligns with the empty schema, earning the zero-parameter baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return the SceneScout testing method' and enumerates its contents (setup order, write modes, exploration, done criteria, reporting). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling execution tools like scout_attach and scout_report.

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 says when to call it: 'ONCE before the first scout_attach in a conversation, then follow it.' It also names an alternative and provides a rule: if a SceneScout skill is offered, load that instead and 'never read both.'

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