run_acceptance_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It mentions that it returns pass/fail results, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., UI interactions that may modify state), session requirements, or failure behavior. This is insufficient for a tool that executes multi-step actions.

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, compact sentence that conveys the core purpose and result type without any redundant or filler content. It earns its place.

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 schema richly defines inputs, but there is no output schema and the description only vaguely mentions 'detailed pass/fail results.' It lacks information about the result structure, prerequisites (e.g., a webdriver session), or edge-case behavior. This makes it minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 for parameters, so the description does not need to add detailed parameter info. The phrase 'multiple verification steps' loosely maps to the 'steps' array, but the schema already fully explains each action type. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Run') on a specific resource ('complete acceptance test') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by noting 'multiple verification steps' and 'detailed pass/fail results.' This makes it evident that this is a high-level aggregate test runner rather than a single UI operation.

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 multi-step acceptance testing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the individual action tools (e.g., press_key, navigate, verify_element_present). No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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