gameplay_pie_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the blocking wait up to 30s, the success condition (PIE-ready log marker found), and the purpose. It does not mention failure modes, side effects on existing PIE sessions, or permissions, but the disclosed behavior is meaningful and goes beyond a bare 'start'.

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, then a success condition, then usage guidance. Every sentence contributes information, with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main behavior, timeout, success marker, and intended usage. It lacks failure conditions and edge cases (e.g., what if PIE is already running), but is otherwise fairly complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% for the single optional parameter level_path, which is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Launch a Play In Editor (PIE) session') and the resource (game world), and includes the waiting behavior. It distinguishes from siblings by naming dependent tools (gameplay_run_acceptance_tests, gameplay_telemetry_snapshot) that should follow this start.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call this before gameplay_run_acceptance_tests or gameplay_telemetry_snapshot.' This provides clear context for invocation order and prerequisites, even though it doesn't list when-not-to-use alternatives.

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