pie_launch_session

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool requests a session, applies a short wait, and returns prior state, current state, and PIE world count. It does not mention preconditions or broader editor side effects, but it is substantially transparent for a simple launcher.

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 logically structured: purpose, Args, Returns, KB link, and example. Every section earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given only two optional parameters, the description covers the essential contract: what it does, what the parameters mean, what it returns, and where to find more knowledge. It stops short of stating prerequisites or failure behavior, but the KB reference and example help close that gap.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: mode determines Simulate vs normal PIE, and wait_seconds controls the post-request delay before reporting state. It could add more detail on allowed values or ranges, but the core semantics are clear.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Request a PIE or Simulate session from the Unreal Editor.' It clearly covers both modes and is distinguishable from sibling tools like pie_stop_session and pie_simulate_input by the launch action.

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 explains when to use each mode: 'simulate' for Simulate In Editor, otherwise normal PIE. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names and the mode semantics make the intended usage clear.

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