test

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: each check runs from a fresh reload at frame 0, all checks run, and output is one line per check with pass/fail syntax. It does not mention runtime cost, whether failures abort the run, or whether any game state is persisted, but the core execution model 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the usage condition. Output examples are embedded inline without padding, and every sentence adds information.

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 with no output schema, the description explains the test source, execution model, output shape, and intended timing. It could be slightly more complete by stating that the game must already be open or by noting whether failures produce a nonzero result, but it is otherwise sufficient.

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%, so the `game` parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning about how the optional `game` argument affects check selection, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Reruns every check saved with `interact` `save`'. It ties the tool to a sibling and makes clear this is a saved-regression-test runner, not an ad-hoc eval, so an agent can distinguish it from `eval` or `perf` without opening the schema.

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 a concrete trigger: 'Use it after an edit that could break earlier features.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, but there is no explicit when-not or direct alternative comparison (e.g. use `eval` for one-off checks instead).

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