Gerar protótipo jogável

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits — the output is a self-contained HTML5 file that runs in the browser without installation — but omits side effects such as where the file is written, whether it overwrites an existing prototype, and what the response returns.

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 what the tool produces, then model options, then per-parameter detail. The prose is dense and slightly run-on but every clause carries reference value, and there is no filler.

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 complex tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite complete on inputs and output format. It is thinner on the call's side effects (save location, return payload), which are the main remaining gap.

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 description coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates valid 'modelo' values, gives concrete 'ajustes' keys (forcaPulo, gravidade, vidas, etc.), defines the 'fases' tile legend (# chão, =, *, !, E, F, P), and sketches the 'cenas' object shape. This adds substantial meaning beyond the near-empty schema, though it still leaves some ambiguity about how modelo drives required fields.

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 artifact — it generates a playable HTML5 prototype that opens directly in the browser with no installation — and scopes it via game genre/name/pitch/goal/palette. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like gerar_gdd (design doc) and criar_jogo (game creation) without opening either 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?

The description implies usage by tying parameters to models ('fases' for plataforma, 'cenas' for narrativa), which tells the agent when each field applies. However, it never states when to choose this tool over gerar_gdd or criar_jogo, nor any prerequisites or exclusions, so routing guidance is only implied.

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