Run PoC Recording Scenario

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.