run_playtest

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

Annotations only include readOnlyHint: false, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context that the tool operates in '[Play Mode]' and 'Returns structured report', which is helpful. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the tool modifies the scene, leaves state changed), failure behavior, or how the 'structured report' is formatted. The description provides some transparency but lacks depth.

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 long due to the DSL command list, but every command listed is essential for constructing a valid script. The opening sentence clearly states purpose and usage direction before diving into the details. While the command list is dense, it is structured as a single paragraph and could be more readable with bullet points, but the information is front-loaded and relevant, so it earns a 4.

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 no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers the DSL syntax and mentions the 'structured report', but it leaves gaps. It does not explain the report's structure, how errors are surfaced, the effect of `timeout` or `abort_on_fail`, or whether the tool requires a specific Unity state. The command list is valuable, but the lack of return-value details and behavioral context makes the description incomplete.

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 for the 7 parameters. The only parameter mentioned is 'defs', with a brief note: 'defs: inline VAL definitions prepended to script.' Parameters like `script`, `timeout`, `abort_on_fail`, `fresh`, and `snapshot_on_failure` are not explained at all. The command list gives an idea of script syntax but does not clarify the meaning of these parameters, leaving the agent with inadequate guidance.

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: 'Execute a playtest DSL script.' It uses a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('playtest DSL script'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool `run_tests` by explicitly noting 'for NUnit tests, use `run_tests`', which helps an agent know when to use this tool instead.

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 explicit guidance by telling the agent to use `run_tests` for NUnit tests, implying this tool is for Play Mode playtest scripts. This is a clear context signal and exclusion. However, it does not discuss other alternatives or list specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, such as when you need to run interactive playtest commands or make assertions against the game state.

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