playtest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the sequential behavior (start Play Solo/Run, wait, capture Output + play state, stop, return report). It omits failure/timeout handling, whether the call blocks, and connection prerequisites, but the operational flow is clearly conveyed.

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 key differentiator ('FULL playtest in ONE call'), and the step sequence follows immediately. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what the report contains (Output + play state), covering the return value at a high level. It could specify report structure or failure modes, but for this composite tool it is largely complete.

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 schema already documents mode, seconds, and outputLimit with enums and defaults. The description adds only 'waits N seconds' and the mode names, which are redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('FULL playtest in ONE call') and enumerates the composite steps -- start, wait, capture, stop, return. This clearly distinguishes it from the granular siblings (play_solo, get_output, get_play_state, stop_playtest) by showing it collapses them into a single call.

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 core of the agent debug loop' implies the primary use case, giving useful context. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g., using the granular step tools for finer control) are provided, so selection is left to inference.

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