Sb3 Run Project

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It only states 'Green flag' and '(proxied)'; it does not explain side effects like stopping or restarting execution, resetting project state, or requiring a connected TurboWarp Desktop instance. The parenthetical 'proxied' is ambiguous.

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 very short and contains no filler, which suits a zero-parameter tool. However, it is fragmentary rather than a full sentence, and 'proxied' is left unexplained, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 side-effecting action with no annotations and no parameters, the description should provide more context: preconditions, bridge requirements, and observable effects. The presence of nearly identical sibling tools makes the missing differentiation costly, so the description is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed.

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 identifies the action ('Green flag') and target ('TurboWarp Desktop via bridge'), so an agent can understand the basic operation: run the current project. It does not explicitly contrast with very similar siblings like sb3_vm_green_flag or sb3_vm_run, but it does narrow scope via 'TurboWarp Desktop via bridge.'

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus the many run/green-flag sibling tools. It does not state preconditions, such as a loaded project or an active bridge connection, nor does it mention alternatives when the VM-based green flag would be more appropriate.

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