wpf_replay

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: mutates app state, stops at first failure with no rollback, failedStep numbering, a 120s deadline, concurrent queries still allowed while other mutations are rejected, and async waits. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a write 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?

Terse, front-loaded, and information-dense; the primary action leads and every subsequent clause adds a distinct operational constraint without padding.

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?

Behavioral context is thorough, but for a tool whose only required parameter is a complex nested schema at 0% description coverage and with no output schema, the description leaves the agent unable to construct a valid `workflow` payload without inspecting the schema.

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 description coverage is 0% and the required `workflow` parameter is a deeply nested object (steps/action/target/root/destination/arguments) that the description never explains. Only `timeout_ms` is partially addressed via the 'Deadline max 120 seconds' clause, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Replay a versioned workflow against the attached app') with a distinctive mechanism ('resolving fresh unique selectors'). This cleanly separates it from the recording siblings (wpf_record, wpf_get_recording) without needing to name them.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('stop recording first') and an environment requirement ('Physical actions need an interactive desktop'), which tells the agent when the tool is viable. It does not name alternatives or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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