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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the execution environment (headless Chromium) and the exact artifacts returned (title, headings, localStorage keys, interactive selectors). It is silent on non-mutation guarantees, timeouts, and failure behavior, but the read-only nature is implied by "inspect."

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 sentences, zero filler. The action and returned artifacts come first and the usage directive last, which is the right front-loading for a discovery tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return value itself, and it enumerates the fields an agent needs in order to build selectors for a subsequent recording. Nothing material is missing for a read-only inspection tool.

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%, so all three parameters including defaults and bounds are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the localhost-port hint for url, which is essentially redundant with the schema example. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: opens a target web service URL in headless Chromium and returns a defined set of artifacts. It also enumerates the returned contents, which clearly distinguishes it from the write-oriented sibling record-poc.

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?

"Use this before recording to discover accurate selectors" gives an explicit ordering constraint that routes the agent to inspect before record-poc. It does not name the sibling directly or state exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scanned directory, the file formats, and that file sizes are returned, but says nothing about ordering, whether results are paginated, or what happens for an empty/nonexistent directory. Adequate but with gaps for a read-only listing 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The resource and scope are stated immediately and nothing is redundant.

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 simple two-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and hints at the return payload ('file sizes'). The omission of ordering/empty-result behavior is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 both 'limit' and 'directory' are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (List) and resource (generated .mp4/.gif/.webm files in the output directory), plus the returned attribute (file sizes). This is clear and concrete, though it never names or contrasts with the sibling list-scenarios, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. The only signal is the implicit 'list what was recorded' framing.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only discovery operation and discloses the 'configured roots' fallback when no directory is given, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about traversal depth, result ordering, or error behavior for invalid roots.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the glob and the scope qualifier are efficiently packed. It is lean but arguably under-informative rather than padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description should describe what a discovered scenario looks like (name, path, metadata), and it does not. Both parameters are covered by the schema, so the core invocation is clear, but the return shape is a real 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 both root and query are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The 'under a directory or configured roots' phrase loosely reinforces the root parameter's default behavior, but adds no syntax or format detail, and the query filter is not mentioned at all.

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 (Discover) and resource (`*.scenario.json` recording definitions), and the file glob makes the target unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling list-recordings, so an agent could still conflate scenario definitions with recordings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. An agent is left to infer that this is the discovery step preceding run-scenario or record-poc rather than a differently-scoped listing sibling like list-recordings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: virtual cursor animation, click ripples, HUD captions, injection methods, and concrete output formats. However it omits operational traits an agent needs — a browser/runtime requirement, execution time or duration limits, and that injecting JS/eval and writing files are side effects.

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 sentences, no filler: the capability list comes first and the output formats are front-loaded in the closing clause. Every phrase maps to a real behavior of the tool.

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 16-parameter, high-complexity tool with no output schema, the description covers capability and output formats but not the workflow shape (ordering of steps/injections), prerequisites, or error/failure behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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%, so the structured fields already define the 16 parameters and the baseline is 3. The description goes further by mapping 'dummy data injection' into its concrete mechanisms (localStorage, sessionStorage, HTTP route mocks, HTML replacements, post-load JS), giving the agent a useful conceptual index into the parameters.

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 (Record) and a well-scoped resource: an automated video walkthrough of a web PoC or localhost service. The explicit mention of output artifacts (.mp4/.gif via animated cursor, HUD captions, dummy-data injection) makes it unmistakably distinct from siblings like list-recordings, inspect-page, and run-scenario.

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 explains what the tool produces but never says when to reach for it versus siblings such as run-scenario or inspect-page, nor any when-not conditions. Usage is only inferable from the mention of a 'steps' choreography.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at side effects by mentioning output path and format overrides, implying a recording artifact is produced, but it omits whether the run is destructive, how long it takes, whether browser/auth setup is needed, and what the return value is.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though it leaves the reader wanting more rather than being genuinely complete.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more work. It never states what a successful run returns (e.g., a recording path) or its side effects, leaving the agent to guess about the result of the operation.

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 restates the same three overrides (URL, output path, format) already documented in the schema and adds no format syntax, path conventions, or precedence rules beyond it.

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 gives a specific verb ('Execute') and a concrete resource ('a saved `*.scenario.json` walkthrough'), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling `record-poc` or `list-scenarios`, so the agent must infer the distinction from the name and context.

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 word 'saved' implies a prerequisite (a scenario file must already exist, presumably surfaced by `list-scenarios`), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no exclusion against `record-poc`. Usage is only implied.

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