run_qa_single

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the browser is shown by default, but it does not explain side effects, output/return format, error behavior, permissions, or whether the run mutates state. This is minimal information for an execution tool.

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?

Two short sentences that lead with the core action, then add purpose and a key behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to tell the agent what the tool returns (e.g., pass/fail, logs), what prerequisites exist (e.g., the item must be prepared), or whether the run has side effects. The simple parameters do not compensate for these critical gaps.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both item_id and headless, so the coverage baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond restating the headless default, which is already in the schema.

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 specific verb ('Runs') and resource ('only one specific item'), clearly distinguishing this from the sibling tool run_qa which likely runs the full suite. The debugging/verification context further clarifies its niche.

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 explicitly frames the tool for debugging and confirmation purposes, giving a clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for batch runs, use run_qa instead).

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