veto_playwright

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool only emits a spec file rather than running a browser, and the schema's agent_response param reveals a multi-phase agentic loop. But it omits where/whether the file is written to disk, overwrite behavior, and any confirmation prompt, which are material for a code-generating tool.

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, deliverable stated first and the crucial scope limitation second. No filler and nothing buried.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition gives the agent enough to know what it produces and what it will not do, and the schema covers all params. It stops short of describing what the returned guidance looks like or how the agentic loop proceeds, which would have closed the remaining gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no per-parameter meaning; notably the unusual agent_response round-trip is only explained in the schema, not in the prose.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+deliverable: it writes a runnable TypeScript Playwright test for a browser scenario and reports how to run it. The negative clause ('Veto does not launch or drive a browser itself') sharpens the purpose and implicitly separates it from execution-style siblings, though it never names an alternative tool.

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 'does not launch or drive a browser' clause tells the agent this is a generation step, not an execution step, which is implied usage guidance. However, it never states when to reach for this versus any sibling (e.g. veto_test_gaps, veto_code_review) or any prerequisite beyond project_dir.

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