browser_run_scenario

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns replay coverage (steps replayed vs. skipped) and assertion results, but does not clarify side effects, mutability, or prerequisites (e.g., whether the scenario must exist).

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 two sentences: the first conveys the core purpose, the second details the return value. No wasted words, front-loaded, and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, inputs, and outputs. It lacks mention of error states or prerequisites, but remains largely complete for a replay 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the `name` parameter described as 'The scenario name to run.' The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 replays a saved scenario and checks assertions, framing it as a pass/fail regression run. This distinguishes it from siblings like `browser_replay` (which likely only replays) by emphasizing assertion checking and regression testing.

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 implies usage for regression testing of saved scenarios, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like `browser_replay` or `browser_save_scenario`. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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