project_smoke_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the build-then-install-then-screenshot flow, including the destructive 'kill+wipe-first' emulator reset, the failure path (built=false, skips install), and the exact return fields. It even notes the CLI dependency, giving the agent a clear picture of side effects and requirements.

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 moderately sized but efficiently structured: a punchy first sentence summarizing the tool, followed by behavior, return value, failure mode, and prerequisite in logical order. Every sentence contributes information, though it could be tightened slightly without losing meaning.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description lists the return fields and explains failure behavior, making it quite complete for a composite tool. It lacks details on the 'platform' parameter and what happens if installation fails, but these are minor gaps relative to the overall richness of information provided.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'dir' well (relative to workspace root or absolute), but it says nothing about 'platform' (default 'emery'), leaving the agent without guidance on this parameter. The description adds some value by clarifying the main parameter, but it does not fully cover the schema's 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 opens with 'Build, install, and screenshot a project — the one-call "does it run?"', which clearly states the tool's verb, resource, and overarching purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pebble_build, pebble_install, and emu_screenshot by advertising this as a combined smoke-test operation.

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 explicitly frames this as 'the fastest "did my change compile" check', giving a clear use case. It also implies when not to use it (e.g., for a full build-only workflow) by describing its combined behavior, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools. The prerequisite 'Requires the `pebble` CLI on PATH' provides additional contextual guidance.

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