Draft a storyboard from a Playwright trace or test

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 behaviors: operates without an LLM or browser, leaves narration as placeholders, notes approximations, and creates demos/<name>/. This is valuable context that goes beyond the schema.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then details output, behavior, and next steps. It is efficient and each clause contributes meaning, though it could be slightly clearer with structured breaks.

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 description covers input, output location, process behavior (no LLM/browser, placeholders, approximations), and even hints at next steps ('Then write the narration and probe.'). An output schema exists to explain return values. It lacks explicit error conditions and force/dir handling, but these are minor given the schema.

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 75% (high), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces file types and name purpose, but these are already in the schema (file: 'absolute path to trace.zip or the test file'; name: 'creates demos/<name>/'). It adds little beyond what the schema already documents.

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 imports a Playwright trace or test file into a storyboard draft, specifying the output location and content. It distinguishes from siblings by its input type (existing trace/test) but doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it misses the 5 for sibling differentiation.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use: when you have an existing Playwright trace or test to convert into a storyboard. It doesn't explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous and the description implies the tool is for existing artifacts.

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