browser_flow_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Replay' conveys the core behavior of re-executing a recorded flow, but it does not mention side effects such as browser navigation or clicks, nor runtime/failure behavior. This is adequate but thin.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every part adds value: the action, the object, the selection criterion, and the source tool.

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?

For a one-parameter tool, the description gives enough to invoke it. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps around how to confirm a flow name is valid and what the result of a successful run looks like.

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 input schema provides only a required string 'name' with no description, so schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by specifying that the name is the name of a recorded flow from browser_flow_record, giving the parameter practical meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Replay'), a specific resource ('recorded flow'), and qualifies it 'by name' with a pointer to browser_flow_record. This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling browsing and recording tools.

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 phrase 'from browser_flow_record' implies a flow must have been recorded first, which gives basic usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor does it mention that browser_flow_list can be used to discover valid flow names.

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