insanitii_phase3_pie_runtime_report

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the stateful lifecycle: it launches PIE, optionally runs the Day 1 loop, and stops PIE — signaling a side-effectful, resource-heavy operation rather than a passive read. However, it omits key behavioral traits: interaction with an already-running PIE session, whether world/save state is mutated by the Day 1 loop, expected duration (wait_seconds suggests a sleep), and behavior when things fail. The start/stop chain is disclosed, but the deeper behavioral surface is not.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary behavior is stated in the first sentence, followed by a KB reference and a minimal no-arg example. Every element earns its place and there is no filler. It is properly concise rather than merely short, so it earns a 4; the KB link format is slightly cryptic and the example is trivial, keeping it from a 5.

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 multi-step operation that launches a live game session, probes runtime systems, and exercises a gameplay loop — with zero annotations and zero parameter descriptions — the description is not complete enough. It leaves undefined what 'probe' evaluates, what the Day 1 loop is, what mode/include_dialogs control, and how the tool behaves if a PIE session already exists. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the operational context an agent needs before invoking a stateful runtime tool is largely absent.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it barely does. The narrative maps loosely to two parameters: 'optionally exercise the Day 1 loop' hints at exercise_loop and 'stop PIE' aligns with stop_after_probe. But mode (what values besides 'play' exist?), wait_seconds (wait for what?), and include_dialogs (which dialogs?) receive zero explanation in either the schema or the description. With five parameters and no descriptions anywhere, this is a significant gap.

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 concrete multi-step operation with specific verbs and resources: 'Launch PIE, probe Insanitii runtime systems, optionally exercise the Day 1 loop, and stop PIE.' This distinguishes it from sibling reports like insanitii_phase1_readiness_report or insanitii_phase3_objective_report, which are clearly not PIE-based runtime probes. It is not a 5 because 'Insanitii runtime systems' and 'Day 1 loop' are unexplained jargon; the agent must rely on the KB pointer to understand what is actually being probed.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the lower-level pie_launch_session / pie_stop_session / pie_capture_log siblings, nor the other insanitii_*_report tools, nor any conditions that would select this tool over them. The KB pointer ('see knowledge_base/10_WORLD_BUILDING.md#overview') is a background reference, not a usage gate. The usage context is only weakly implied by the tool name and the example invocation.

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