run_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden and discloses key behaviors: drives steps, asserts expectations, compares screenshot post-interaction, returns a report with ok and breakdown, provides preview (diff image on mismatch). It also clarifies that failed checks are normal.

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 paragraph with clear front-loading of purpose. While informative, it could be slightly more concise by merging some sentences. Overall, no unnecessary verbiage.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (report with ok and per-check breakdown, preview image). It covers the scenario components, execution, and handling of failures, making it complete for a complex tool.

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 coverage is 100% (only one parameter), and the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by elaborating on the scenario structure (fenestra/1 description, steps, expect bundle).

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 runs a verification scenario in one pass, listing components (fenestra/1 description, steps, expectations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform individual checks (e.g., check_a11y, interact).

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., using individual tools for step-by-step verification). While the purpose implies it's for a combined run, no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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