Run cross-service YAML scenarios

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses sequential execution, state sharing, the ability to chain calls with interpolation/capture/expectations/waitMs, the fact that destructive operations are allowed only here, and the failure result format (failing step name, trace, captured variables).

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?

Three sentences packed with essential information, no fluff. Front-loaded with the main action, then covers semantics, safety, and result format efficiently.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the result format on failure and implies success results. It covers execution mode, state sharing, destructive operation safety, and flow semantics. Adequate for a complex tool with no annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter details, but it doesn't need to. Baseline 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 'Executes the hand-written business scenarios in tests/flows/*.yaml sequentially', which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is 'the only place where destructive operations are allowed' and emphasizes the cross-service flow chaining.

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 provides strong context: flows share state and must never be run in parallel, and this is the only tool where destructive operations are allowed. It implies when to use it over alternatives but does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it beyond the parallel warning.

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