gameplay_run_acceptance_tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the return format (pass/fail per predicate with observed value) and the predicate categories, but does not explicitly declare whether the tool modifies game state or is safe to run concurrently, a notable gap for a test tool.

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, front-loads the action, and uses a structured list for predicates without extraneous detail.

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?

It provides prerequisites, predicate syntax, return expectations, and default timeout behavior via schema, which is adequate for a tool with no output schema and only two parameters; it could mention side effects but the core functionality is well covered.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described; the description adds the semantic meaning of each predicate type and clarifies the 'survive' predicate, but largely mirrors the schema's examples.

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 identifies the tool as running structured acceptance test predicates against a live PIE session, using a specific verb and resource, and lists the predicate syntax, distinguishing it from the PIE start/stop siblings.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite that PIE must be running and directs the user to call gameplay_pie_start first, though it doesn't mention alternatives like gameplay_telemetry_snapshot.

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