ue5_verify_scenario

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the load, and it does disclose substantive behavior: automatic PIE start/stop, a total timeout cap, rejection of destructive command steps unless allow_destructive=true, and the return payload (verified + per-step evidence + junit_path). It stops short of edge cases like behavior when PIE is already running or how failures are recorded per step.

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 English sentence is efficient and leads with the core action, but every point is then repeated verbatim in Chinese, roughly doubling length without adding information an agent can use. Structure is front-loaded, but the duplication costs it.

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 9-parameter orchestration tool with no output schema, the description does state what is returned (verified, per-step evidence, junit_path) and covers the safety gate and timeout. What's missing is detail on the nested 'steps' payload shape, which is the most complex part of the call.

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 all nine parameters including defaults and the timeout cap. The description reinforces a few of them (timeout, allow_destructive) but adds no syntax or step-schema detail (e.g. what fields a 'wait' or 'assert' step object requires) beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Run a scripted acceptance scenario in PIE and emit a JUnit report', then enumerates the step types (wait/assert/screenshot/log_contains/command). This is clearly more than a single-behavior check, but no sibling is named (e.g. ue5_verify_behavior or ue5_execute_command), so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage context is implied: acceptance scenarios, CI-consumable JUnit, automatic PIE start/stop. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance against the many PIE/verification siblings, and no stated preconditions (e.g. whether PIE may already be running).

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