Build and serve a GDevelop preview

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

With annotations showing only false values (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses that it starts a loopback HTTP server and returns the URL, revealing a persistent side effect. It does not mention server lifetime or resource usage, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentence that immediately states the action, method, and output. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 the main steps (compile, serve, return URL) and gives an adequate overview. However, it lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance, and with no output schema, the return format is only described as 'preview URL'. Gaps remain for a tool that starts a persistent server, but the core context is present.

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 0%, and the description mentions neither projectId nor sceneName. The agent must infer meaning from names alone, which is especially problematic for the optional sceneName parameter. The description provides no additional value for parameter understanding.

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 compiles a project, starts a loopback HTTP server, and returns a preview URL. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like export_project (which exports without serving) and get_preview_status (which only checks status).

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 the tool is for building and serving a preview, but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like export_project or get_preview_status. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so the guidance is limited to context rather than explicit directions.

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