Sb3 Vm Green Flag

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'press green flag' but does not explain what that does (e.g., start the project, trigger a broadcast, reset state). The '(proxied)' hint is vague and doesn't disclose side effects, state changes, or response behavior. Significant gap for a tool that likely mutates VM state.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise. However, the brevity comes at the cost of essential context. It's not wasteful, but it under-delivers on meaning. A short description that says too little is not ideal, so a 3 reflects that.

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?

The tool sits among many VM tools with overlapping semantics, and the description does not clarify what 'green flag' entails, whether it requires a loaded project, or how it differs from sb3_vm_run. No return value or side effects are described. Despite an output schema existing, the tool's behavior is opaque, making it incomplete for an agent to call 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per the calibration, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but there's nothing to explain, so this is acceptable.

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 clear verb ('press green flag') and resource ('headless VM'), which is specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like sb3_vm_run or sb3_vm_load, which might have overlapping functionality. The purpose is clear in isolation but not distinguished from alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many VM-related siblings. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. An agent would have to infer that 'green flag' is a Scratch-specific event, but there's no explicit routing or exclusions.

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