start_gauntlet_run

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, non-open-world), the description discloses substantial behavioral detail: synchronous single game-thread execution, that multi-tick tests (PIE/load-map/latent waits) are abandoned with completed=false, and the exact return payload including verdict and note. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 key capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the execution/limitation caveats follow logically. The Gauntlet-subprocess explanation runs slightly long, but each sentence contributes operational information an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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 single-parameter test runner with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what it does, how it runs, what failures/limits look like, and inline-documents the return shape (verdict, errors, warnings, duration, note). An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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%, and the single test_name parameter is fully documented in the schema (including example values). The description adds no format or naming rules beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema carries the load.

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 and resource — drive the in-process FAutomationTestFramework as an in-editor Gauntlet equivalent — and draws a clear conceptual boundary against the real Gauntlet subprocess. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close actual siblings like run_automation_test, run_smoke_tests, or run_functional_test_in_pie, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 gives context ('for the common case of run a test and report pass/fail') and explains why the Gauntlet subprocess path is unavailable, which implies usage. But it never names or excludes the sibling tools that do the same job (run_automation_test, run_smoke_tests, run_functional_test_in_pie), so the agent gets no explicit routing rule.

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