Start Test (Async)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral details: it is async (returns taskId), does not record traffic, can be canceled via cancel_task, and handles active recording pauses. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise at five sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and logically structures additional details (non-recording, async polling, pause/resume condition, cancellation).

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?

The description covers key aspects: purpose, non-recording, async return, result retrieval, cancellation, and the active recording edge case. It assumes a booted simulator is mentioned, which is sufficient given the sibling boot_simulator tool. It is complete for a tool of this complexity, though it could briefly mention prerequisites.

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 each parameter is well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it mainly provides high-level context about the tool's behavior and return values.

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 runs a Maestro YAML test file with optional WireMock stub replay, specifying the verb 'run' and the resource 'Maestro YAML test file'. It distinguishes itself from recording tools by explicitly stating it does NOT record new network traffic.

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 provides some implicit guidance (e.g., for static scripts, not recording) and mentions conditions like MCA_FLOW_PAUSE_RESUME for active recordings, but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools such as start_flow or run_feature_test, which would clarify when to use this tool over alternatives.

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