Report Three.js Play diagnostics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, persistence semantics (e.g., overwrite vs. append), permission requirements, or failure behavior. 'Records' implies a write operation, but important behavioral details are missing.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, which is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with this many parameters and side effects. It is not as extreme as a tautology, but it lacks the detail needed to be truly useful, so it falls to a middle score.

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 involves a write operation with 4 parameters and an output schema, but the description does not explain when to use it, what happens on duplicate revisions, or any constraints beyond the schema. The absence of annotations and minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent to use 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?

The input schema has 4 required parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'errors and warnings' but does not explain their structure or the meaning of projectId and testedRevision beyond what the schema's patterns imply. The description adds negligible value for understanding the parameters.

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 tool's function: it records Play errors and warnings for a specific project revision. The verb 'Records' and the resource 'errors and warnings' are specific, and 'one exact project revision' sets a clear scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like inspect_project or check_project.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It merely states what the tool does without explaining the appropriate context or how it differs from related operations.

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