detect_selenium_boot

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the core behavior clearly but does not disclose the return shape, whether it is strictly read-only, or what happens when the directory is not inside a TestFly project. For a simple detection tool this is acceptable but not 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?

Two short sentences, each earning its place: the first establishes the alias relationship, the second states the detection behavior. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only detection tool, the description is nearly sufficient. It identifies the purpose, the relationship to detect_testfly, and the default scope. The only real gap is the absence of an explicit return-value description, which would be more important without the clear 'detects whether' phrasing.

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 100%, and the schema already explains that project_dir is optional and defaults to the server's working directory. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 names a specific verb ('detects'), a resource ('current working directory inside a TestFly project'), and explicitly identifies itself as a backward-compatible alias for detect_testfly. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool detect_testfly rather than leaving the relationship ambiguous.

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?

Calling it a 'backward-compatible alias for detect_testfly' tells the agent the tool is semantically equivalent to detect_testfly and exists for legacy compatibility. It does not explicitly state 'prefer detect_testfly for new code,' but the alias framing gives enough context for selection.

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