scout_upload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers thoroughly. It explains the interception of the file chooser, the generation of valid fixtures in memory, the fencing of filePath to the project, and the detailed result content (input name, violation flags, cleared-input warning, state-changing request detection). It also hints at side effects (state-changing requests) and provides follow-up guidance, making behavior fully transparent.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core action, but it is a single long paragraph without section breaks. Every sentence adds value, and the structure flows from purpose to parameters to result, so it is well-organized. It could be slightly more scannable with bullet points, but the content justifies the length.

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, the absence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return value in detail (input name, method, accept violations, cleared-input warning, state-change detection) and offers concrete next steps. It also covers edge cases like hidden inputs, multiple sessions, and fixture types. Nothing essential for an agent to call it correctly 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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. For `ref`, it explains the two acceptable target types and the hidden-input scenario. For `fixture`, it clarifies the inference logic and default. For `filePath`, it adds the project-fencing constraint. For `name`, it explains boundary-test use cases. This is far beyond the schema's terse descriptions, so it deserves a 5.

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 a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Attach a file to an upload control the way a user does.' It immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings like scout_click or scout_type by describing the upload interaction and the mechanism for reaching hidden inputs. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 rich usage context: when to omit `ref`, when to use `fixture` vs `filePath`, how to target hidden inputs, and what to do after upload (click submit if no state-changing request). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion, but the guidance is clear enough to select this tool for uploads. A small gap is the lack of an explicit 'use this instead of X' statement.

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