scout_run_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the abort-on-new-violation/failure behavior, else it returns a transcript of how far it got, and specifies that repeated violations do not abort. It also explains semantic locator resolution at execution time and upload step specifics—all beyond schema and highly valuable for an agent.

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 starts with purpose, then flows to target resolution, upload exception, and abort behavior—logical and front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, though the density of technical details makes it slightly heavy to parse. Could benefit from bullet points, but it remains concise for the information conveyed.

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 complex multi-step tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers essential operational semantics: execution limits, target resolution, upload steps, and abort conditions. It lacks detail on the transcript format and domain terms like 'oracle violation', but enough is provided for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 50% (session described well, steps not). The description compensates by explaining the steps' target syntax ('testid=…', 'text=…', 'label=…'), upload behavior, and the abort semantics. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare enum, though not every action type is individually expanded.

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 opens with 'Execute up to 20 actions in ONE call' and specifies the use case ('mechanical sequences (fill a form, walk a wizard)'), clearly distinguishing this from single-action siblings like scout_click and scout_type. It names the resource and action explicitly.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: for mechanical sequences to avoid round-trip cost. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context makes it clear that individual single actions belong to the sibling tools. This is strong guidance but lacks formal exclusions.

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