delimit_story_visual_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that standalone mode returns 'guidance' and that using Playwright enables full visual regression with baseline comparison. However, it does not disclose what happens to the baseline (e.g., is it stored, updated?), what the guidance contains, or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise with 3 sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It could be improved by structuring the enhancements more clearly, but it is efficient and without unnecessary words.

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 that there is an output schema (indicated by context signals) and 100% parameter coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain what the output of the tool is (e.g., a diff image, a pass/fail status) or elaborate on the 'guidance' returned in standalone mode. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.

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?

All three parameters (url, project_path, threshold) have descriptions in the input schema, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain how the parameters are used in practice (e.g., how threshold affects the comparison). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Run visual regression test -- screenshot and compare to baseline.' This is a specific verb ('run') and resource ('visual regression test'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like delimit_screenshot (which likely just takes a screenshot) and delimit_test_smoke (a different type of test).

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 some guidance: 'Works without external tools (returns guidance). Enhanced with: Playwright (recommended)... Puppeteer...' This tells the agent when to use external tools, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it to alternative tools for similar tasks (e.g., when to use delimit_screenshot instead).

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