run_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a critical trust boundary: flows can run arbitrary JS and local files, alerting about security. It doesn't detail other behaviors like output or side effects, but the primary behavior is clear.

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 remarkably concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and constraints, then adds usage guidance and a security note. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 an execution tool with 8 parameters, the description covers input constraints well. It doesn't mention return values or error handling, but the tool likely outputs to stdout/logs, which may be assumed. The trust boundary note adds important context.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of yaml/files/dir and applicability of tags only with dir. Also notes yaml is preferred for exploration. This goes beyond 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 clearly states the tool executes Maestro flows on a device, with specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_steps and individual gesture tools by noting when each is appropriate.

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?

Explicitly states to provide exactly one of yaml, files, or dir, and clarifies that includeTags/excludeTags only apply to dir. Provides clear guidance on when to use this tool vs run_steps or individual gesture tools.

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