Run Project

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

Annotations only declare the mutation/safety profile; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the success string, that compile errors are returned but runtime exceptions are invisible and must be asked of the user, a 30-second wait cap, and the prerequisite that the IDE must be running with the project open. That is the full burden carried well.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the primary guard, then prerequisites last. It is dense with several sibling references, but each sentence carries distinct decision-relevant information; only the runtime-exception aside is mildly verbose.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing both return cases (launch confirmation vs. compile errors) plus the invisible runtime-exception gap. Prerequisites and the wait limit round out everything an agent needs to call 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics to explain and the description correctly spends no space on them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Runs the open Xojo project in the IDE's debugger'), which is precisely distinguishable from build_project (compile only) and agentic_run (Agentic Mode compile-error reporting). An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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 constrains invocation ('Call it only when the user asks to run') and names alternatives with the condition that selects them: agentic_run for Agentic Mode projects, debug_control to step, stop_project to end. This is textbook when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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