auto_walk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior (heuristic navigation, no AI reasoning, autonomous execution, returns a report), but it does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the walk might interact with the page beyond navigation. This is useful but incomplete.

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, front-loaded with the key differentiator ('Fast automated walk using heuristic-based navigation (no AI reasoning)'), and each sentence adds meaningful information. There is no wasted text.

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 tool is simple with documented parameters, but lacks an output schema and annotations. The description mentions 'returns a report' without detailing what the report contains, and does not clarify whether the walk requires or creates a session relative to sibling tools like start_session and step. This leaves important gaps for a tool that runs autonomously.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (url, persona, max_steps), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 performs an 'automated walk using heuristic-based navigation (no AI reasoning)' and 'runs the full flow autonomously and returns a report.' This specifies the verb (walk), the resource (full flow), and distinguishes it from step-by-step alternatives among siblings.

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 explicitly gives a usage condition: 'Use this for quick scans when you don't need to drive step-by-step.' This clearly indicates when to use it, though it does not name specific alternative tools or provide exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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