record_test_flow

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool runs an agent, captures step details, and uses Gemini for assertion generation. However, it does not mention side effects like resource consumption, rate limits, or failure modes. The level of detail is moderate but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured with a brief overview, an Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy. It is concise yet informative, fitting within a compact paragraph with a clear hierarchy.

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 description provides a return dict overview and parameter details, but lacks edge cases, error handling, and behavior under different conditions. With no annotations or output schema, more contextual information (e.g., timeouts, intended use cases) would improve completeness. However, it covers the core functionality adequately.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section provides necessary semantics. It explains each parameter clearly, including the enum values for business_criticality and the source of profile_name. This adds value beyond the schema, though some parameters (e.g., command) could use more nuance.

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: 'Record a test flow by running a Browser-Use agent to accomplish a goal.' It specifies the resource (test flow) and the action (record), and differentiates from sibling tools like evaluate_web_task by mentioning capture details and assertion generation.

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 through the description (recording flows, optional auth profile from save_auth_profile), but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given. The reference to 'from save_auth_profile' hints at a prerequisite, but the description does not clearly state when to use this tool versus other test-related tools.

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