play_solo

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal that this launches a playtest session and names verification tools, but omits whether Studio must already be open, whether it ends/replaces a running session, or whether it blocks.

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 short sentences: the action is front-loaded, and the second sentence is pure routing value with no filler. Nothing is padded or restated.

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 no-param start action with no output schema, the essential 'what it does' and 'what to do next' are covered. Missing preconditions (Studio/bridge state) and disambiguation from the closely related playtest, run_game, and stop_playtest siblings leave a 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter prose, and the empty schema has no semantics left to document.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Start Play Solo playtest (F5)'. The (F5) cue identifies the mode distinctly from the generic sibling playtest/run_game, though it never says explicitly what makes it different from those tools.

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?

Gives downstream guidance ('Agent can then check behavior via get_output / get_play_state / execute_luau'), which implies the intended workflow after invocation. It does not say when to choose this over siblings like playtest or run_game, nor any exclusion or precondition.

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