Run Feature Test

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description explains it orchestrates a lifecycle (setup, record, actions, assertions, teardown), implying side effects but not detailing what gets destroyed or authentication needs. With openWorldHint, more context on side effects would improve transparency, but the description does not contradict annotations.

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, front-loading the key value proposition ('execute a declarative feature test in ONE tool call') and summarizing the lifecycle. 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 the tool's complexity (9 params, nested objects, output schema exists), the description provides a clear overview of the lifecycle and key capability. It does not explain return values (output schema exists, so not required). It could mention that it internally uses sibling tools, but the replacement claim implies that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when to use it.

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 adds high-level meaning (accepts inline spec or file path) but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers for each parameter. The schema itself is rich with descriptions.

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 a declarative feature test in a single call, listing the lifecycle steps (setup, recording, actions, assertions, teardown). It distinguishes itself by claiming it replaces 8-15 individual tool calls, making its purpose specific and differentiated from siblings like start_recording_session, verify_network_*, etc.

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 when to use this tool: when you want to run a complete feature test in one call, avoiding manual orchestration. It mentions 'Replaces 8-15 AI-orchestrated tool calls', giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., debugging or partial runs) or suggest alternatives beyond the implied single tools.

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