run_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only partially discloses behavioral traits. It mentions execution in a real browser and pass/fail results, but doesn't cover important aspects like error handling, performance characteristics, resource requirements, or side effects. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides context about real browser execution. Both sentences earn their place, though some behavioral context could be added for better completeness.

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 complex test execution tool with 3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (beyond 'pass/fail results'), error conditions, execution environment requirements, or important behavioral constraints that would help an agent use it 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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'given steps' and 'pass/fail results', but doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage, relationships, or best practices beyond what's already documented in 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('execute', 'run', 'verify') and resources ('Playwright test', 'real browser'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on actual test execution rather than analysis, generation, or locator 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 implies usage context ('to actually run and verify tests in a real browser') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like generate_test or analyze_page. It provides general purpose but lacks specific guidance on tool selection.

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