maestro_run_flow

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

No annotations are provided. The description discloses that it returns captured screenshots but fails to mention any side effects, clean-up, or device state changes. For a test execution tool, more behavioral transparency is expected.

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 concise, with two clear paragraphs: the first explains functionality and output, the second lists actions. No redundant information.

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?

Returns are described (screenshots as images), but there is no mention of error handling, step limits, or device prerequisites. Given no output schema, the description adequately covers main use but lacks some depth.

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%, but the description adds value beyond the schema by enumerating all available actions (e.g., tapOn, inputText) which are not fully listed in the schema's action property. This helps the agent understand valid action values.

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 UI test flow, distinguishes from sibling 'maestro_run_yaml' by specifying it accepts structured steps, and lists available actions. The verb 'run' and resource 'UI test flow' are specific.

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 for programmatic step creation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like maestro_run_yaml or maestro_screenshot. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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