run_project_with_user_interaction

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description details the force-stop behavior upon button click, automatic termination handling, and the 2-second wait for log extraction. This adds valuable behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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 well-structured with clear paragraphs and bullet points for use cases and parameters. It is slightly lengthy but front-loaded with the main action and retains only essential information.

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 description covers the entire interactive workflow, termination scenarios, and log retrieval, providing enough detail for the agent to use the tool effectively. The presence of an output schema (mentioned but not shown) reduces the need to describe return values explicitly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains all four parameters: project_path (required path), scheme (optional, defaults to active), regex_filter (optional filter), and max_lines (default 20). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 runs an app and displays an alert dialog for user interaction, distinguishing it from non-interactive run tools like run_project_unmonitored or run_project_until_terminated. The verb 'run' combined with 'interaction' accurately reflects the tool's function.

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 specifies it is 'Perfect for: Interactive testing, manual QA, debugging UI flows', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for non-interactive runs, slightly reducing the score.

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