validate_flow

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses the oracle ladder (WebView-DOM > native a11y > Maestro; fail-closed), the three health checks (crashes, Metro logs, network errors), and the strict condition for ok=true. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then efficiently explains the mechanism and conditions. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given no output schema, the description could be more explicit about the return format (e.g., JSON structure of verdict and evidence). However, it sufficiently covers inputs, process, and success criteria. Minor gap on error handling or timeout behavior.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add specific meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides; it only contextualizes their use in the overall process.

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 returns a verdict on whether a flow works, specifying the combination of visibility assertions and auto-checks. It uses specific verb 'validates' and distinguishes from simpler sibling tools like assert_visible by describing a higher-level, evidenced validation process.

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 advises to 'State the expected outcome as assertions' and frames the tool as making the AI's work auditable, implying use after flow implementation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or direct alternatives among siblings.

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