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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions command naming conventions (camelCase) but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Add'), permission requirements, how it affects existing commands at the index, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies test data.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. The second part about camelCase naming is relevant but could be integrated more smoothly. There's no fluff, and it avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral outcomes (e.g., how insertion affects existing commands, error responses), prerequisites, and comparison to sibling tools. The naming convention hint is useful but insufficient to compensate for missing context.

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 schema fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'commands' are an array and mentions camelCase naming for the 'command' field, but doesn't explain 'index' semantics (e.g., insertion behavior) or provide examples for 'target' and 'value'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 action ('Add one or more commands') and the resource ('to a test at a specific index'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'clear_and_replace_commands' or 'fix_commands' by focusing on insertion rather than replacement or correction, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'clear_and_replace_commands' or 'fix_commands'. It mentions command naming conventions but doesn't specify prerequisites, error conditions, or contextual triggers for insertion versus other command-modification tools.

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 provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive behavior ('removes all existing commands first'), which is crucial for a mutation operation. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or response format. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for missing 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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second clarifies the behavioral implication. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the core action and destructive nature, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, error handling, and return values. Given the complexity, it should do more to compensate for missing structured data.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('test_id' and 'commands'). The description adds marginal context by implying 'commands' should be a complete new set, but doesn't provide syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Replace ALL commands'), target resource ('in a test'), and scope ('with a new set'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_commands' (which adds without removal) and 'fix_commands' (which implies modification rather than full replacement).

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 usage context by stating 'removes all existing commands first,' suggesting this tool should be used when a complete replacement is needed rather than incremental changes. However, it doesn't explicitly name when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative tools like 'add_commands' for partial updates.

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 full burden. It mentions that indexes refer to the 'current command list BEFORE any fixes are applied', which adds some behavioral context about ordering. However, it lacks critical details like whether this is a destructive operation, permission requirements, error handling, or what happens to other commands not mentioned, making it insufficient for a mutation 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?

The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and actions, the second clarifies index behavior. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every sentence adding value.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (50%), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits like side effects, return values, or error conditions, and parameter details are lacking. For a mutation tool with nested objects in 'fixes', this is inadequate.

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 50% (only 'test_id' and 'index' have descriptions). The description adds no explicit parameter information beyond implying 'fixes' involve actions on commands. It doesn't explain the semantics of 'command', 'target', or 'value' fields, nor does it clarify how actions map to parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 verb ('apply targeted fixes') and resource ('commands in a test'), with specific actions listed ('update, remove, or insert at specific indexes'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_commands' or 'clear_and_replace_commands' by emphasizing targeted fixes at indexes rather than bulk operations, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage for modifying existing command lists in tests, with context about index referencing 'BEFORE any fixes are applied'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'add_commands' or 'clear_and_replace_commands', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving guidance incomplete.

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 full burden. While 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose what information is returned, format details, error conditions, or whether it requires specific test execution context. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'information' is returned, how it differs from other test-related getters, or what 'currently active' means in context. The agent would struggle to use this effectively.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's purpose.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('currently active test suite and its tests'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_test_by_name' or 'get_test_list', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_test_by_name' and 'get_test_list' available, there's no indication whether this tool is for current runtime context, general lookup, or specific filtering scenarios.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves documentation, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned documentation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place by specifying what is retrieved (detailed documentation), for what (a specific Selenix command), and what it includes (target and value parameter descriptions). There is no waste or 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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent must infer behavior from the description alone, which is incomplete for effective tool invocation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'command_name' fully documented in the schema as 'The camelCase command name (e.g., "click", "executeScript")'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed documentation for a specific Selenix command, including target and value parameter descriptions.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('documentation for a specific Selenix command'), and scope ('including target and value parameter descriptions'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_command_list' or 'get_selected_command_info', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_command_list' (which might list commands) or 'get_selected_command_info' (which might provide info for a currently selected command), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists commands with descriptions, but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits such as whether the output is paginated, sorted, or filtered; if there are rate limits; or what authentication might be required. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool does without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List all available Selenix commands') and includes a helpful parenthetical example ('click, type, open, etc.') to clarify scope, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., output format, limitations) and usage guidelines relative to siblings. For a read-only listing tool, this is minimally viable but could be more informative about what the agent should expect.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose. A baseline score of 4 is given since no parameters are present, and the description doesn't attempt to explain nonexistent inputs.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all available Selenix commands'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_command_info' or 'get_selected_command_info', which might provide more targeted information about specific commands rather than a comprehensive list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like 'get_command_info' (for details on a specific command) or 'get_active_suite' (for commands in a test suite), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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 full burden. It mentions the return format but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or how it handles errors. The description is functional but lacks operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and return details. It avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from returns).

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and return format adequately. However, for a tool with potential complexity (e.g., interacting with tests/commands), it lacks details on error handling, data format, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps in context.

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 schema already documents the single parameter 'test_id' as optional with its effect. The description adds minimal value by restating that omitting it returns the active test, aligning with the schema but not providing additional semantics 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('commands of the current test'), specifying what information is returned (test name, ID, commands with targets/values). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_test_list' (lists tests) but not from 'get_test_by_name' (similar but by name vs ID).

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 usage by mentioning 'current test (or a specific test by ID)', suggesting it's for retrieving test details. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_test_by_name' or 'get_command_list', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it returns 20 logs per page in most-recent-first order, supports pagination via a page parameter, and specifies default behavior (page 0 = most recent). However, it does not cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which could be relevant for a logging 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then details pagination behavior in two clear sentences. Every sentence adds value—no wasted words—making it efficient and well-structured for an agent.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, behavior, and pagination. However, it lacks details on log format, error cases, or how it integrates with sibling tools, which could enhance completeness for an agent in this context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'page' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it repeats pagination details). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without extra param info in the description.

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's purpose: 'Get recent logs from Selenix (all types).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('logs'), and scope ('recent', 'all types'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_step_results' or 'get_command_info' that might also retrieve log-related data, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 usage for paginated log retrieval with 'Use page parameter to paginate,' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_step_results' or other sibling tools. It offers basic context but lacks exclusions or clear alternatives.

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 provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: it annotates interactive elements and removes scripts/styles. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact, authentication requirements, or what format the annotations take. The description adds value but leaves gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the HTML') and immediately adds qualifying details. Every phrase adds value: specifying the source ('web page in the active playback window'), key features ('interactive elements annotated'), and exclusions ('Scripts and styles are removed'). Zero wasted words.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and moderate complexity (HTML extraction with annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers what the tool does and key transformations, but doesn't describe the return format, error conditions, or how annotations are represented. Given the lack of structured fields, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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?

The description mentions no parameters directly, but the single parameter (tab_id) has 100% schema description coverage that clearly explains its purpose and usage. With zero parameters described in the tool description itself, and high schema coverage, the baseline is appropriately met without needing compensation.

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 specific action ('Get the HTML'), target resource ('web page in the active playback window'), and key characteristics ('with interactive elements annotated', 'Scripts and styles are removed'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_screenshot (visual capture) and get_search_html (likely filtered HTML).

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 usage for retrieving annotated HTML from a playback context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_screenshot or get_search_html. There's no mention of prerequisites, performance considerations, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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 of behavioral disclosure. While it implies a read-only operation by using 'Get', it doesn't explicitly state safety aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and provides specific examples of returned metadata. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete for its basic purpose. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details about return format, error handling, or operational constraints that would be helpful for an agent invoking it in a real workflow.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. It could potentially mention that no inputs are required, but this is already clear from the schema.

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 action ('Get metadata') and the resource ('current Selenix project'), with specific examples of what metadata is returned (name, base URL, test count, suite count). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from similar sibling tools like 'get_test_list' or 'get_workspace_context', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or how it differs from sibling tools that also retrieve project-related information, leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and output format but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's read-only or has side effects, potential rate limits, error conditions (e.g., no active window), or how the base64 encoding is structured. The description is minimal and misses key operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes essential output details. There is zero wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and output format but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling) and usage guidelines. For a tool that interacts with a browser playback system, more operational details would be helpful.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.

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 specific action ('Capture a screenshot'), the target resource ('active browser window in Selenix playback'), and the output format ('base64-encoded JPEG image'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_page_html or get_search_html by focusing on visual capture rather than HTML content.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an active Selenix playback session), exclusions, or comparisons to other screenshot-related tools (none exist among siblings, but this isn't addressed).

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 full burden. It mentions searching and returning context but lacks critical behavioral details: what 'surrounding HTML context' means (character count, DOM structure), whether this operates on current page or saved HTML, error handling for invalid regex, or performance implications. The description is too vague for a tool that interacts with page content.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place—'Search page HTML by regex pattern' establishes the action, and 'return surrounding HTML context for matches' completes the purpose 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'surrounding HTML context' returns (structure, size limitations), error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools. Given the complexity of HTML searching and the lack of structured metadata, more behavioral context is needed.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'regex pattern' and 'surrounding HTML context' which loosely relates to parameters but doesn't provide additional semantics like regex flavor, context size, or tab_id usage scenarios.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Search', 'return') and resources ('page HTML', 'surrounding HTML context'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_page_html' or 'get_logs', which might also involve HTML/page content retrieval.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_page_html' (which might fetch raw HTML) and 'get_logs' (which could contain HTML snippets), there's no indication of when regex-based HTML searching is preferred over other methods.

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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it describes what information is returned, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), performance characteristics, error conditions, or what happens when no command is selected and command_id is omitted. The description provides output content but lacks operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the specific information returned. Every phrase adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool provides.

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 tool with 1 parameter (fully documented in schema) but no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what information is returned but leaves gaps in behavioral context. It specifies the content types returned (DOM hierarchy, accessibility info, etc.) which helps compensate for the missing output schema, but doesn't address operational aspects like error handling or performance that would be important for agent decision-making.

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 schema already fully documents the single optional parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining when to provide command_id versus relying on current selection, or format expectations. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get comprehensive context') and target resource ('a command target element'), listing the exact types of information returned (DOM hierarchy, accessibility info, surrounding HTML, interactive properties). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_command_info (which presumably returns different command metadata) and get_page_html (which returns full page HTML rather than focused element 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 description implies usage when detailed element context is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like get_command_info or get_page_html. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is most appropriate versus its siblings.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned results. This is a significant gap for a tool that retrieves test outcomes.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of retrieving test results, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the structure of the results (e.g., array of objects with statuses) or potential side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 input schema fully documents the optional 'test_id' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it defaults to the 'active test', which is already covered by the schema's description. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('pass/fail/error results for each command in the last test run'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'get_command_info' or 'get_logs', which might provide overlapping information, so it misses the top score.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_command_info' or 'get_logs', which could offer related data. The description implies usage for the 'last test run' but doesn't clarify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a test 'including all commands,' which hints at read-only behavior and data inclusion, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to fully inform the agent.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Get a specific test by its name, including all commands.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a useful detail (commands inclusion) without unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and data inclusion but lacks guidance on usage, behavioral traits, and output details. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'test_name' documented as 'The name of the test to retrieve.' The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a specific test by its name, including all commands.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('test'), and scope ('by its name, including all commands'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_test_list' or 'get_current_test', which prevents a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_test_list' (for listing tests) or 'get_current_test' (which might retrieve a different test context), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what data is returned (IDs, names, command counts) but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, scope, and returned data without any redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate for understanding its basic purpose. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, response format details). The description covers the 'what' but not the 'how' or constraints.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it clearly explains what the tool does without parameter context. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all tests in the current Selenix project') with specific attributes ('IDs, names, and command counts'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_test_by_name' (which fetches a single test) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_command_list' (which lists commands rather than tests).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'get_test_list' over 'get_test_by_name' for finding a specific test, or how it relates to 'get_active_suite' or 'run_test'. The description implies usage for listing tests but offers no context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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 provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature through 'Get' and specifies the exact data returned, but doesn't mention error conditions, performance characteristics, or whether this requires specific permissions. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but minimal.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose and return values with zero waste. Every word earns its place - 'Get' establishes action, 'summary of current Selenix workspace' defines scope, and the list specifies exact data points.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides complete context about what information is returned. It could be more complete by mentioning format or structure of the summary, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of annotations, it adequately covers the essential behavior.

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?

The tool has zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs. It provides clear semantics about the workspace context being retrieved, establishing the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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 specific action ('Get a summary') and resource ('current Selenix workspace'), listing the exact information returned (project name, active test, test count, selected command count). It distinguishes from siblings like get_project_info or get_active_test by specifying this is a comprehensive workspace summary rather than individual components.

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 usage when needing workspace context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_project_info or get_active_test. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios with sibling tools.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a synchronous operation that waits for completion, returns pass/fail results per command, and has a potential 2-minute runtime. This covers execution behavior, output format, and performance expectations beyond basic function.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core action, output, and performance characteristic without any wasted words. Every sentence adds essential information.

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 moderate complexity (execution with waiting), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the operation, output format, and timing, though it could benefit from mentioning error handling or prerequisites (e.g., test must exist).

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'test_id' documented as optional and specifying default behavior if omitted. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Run a test') and resource ('test'), and indicates it waits for completion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_test' or 'get_test_by_name', which are likely read-only operations versus this execution 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 description implies usage context by mentioning it 'waits for it to complete' and takes up to 2 minutes, suggesting it's for synchronous test execution. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'add_commands' or 'clear_and_replace_commands', which might be for test setup rather than execution.

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