Run project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that it captures output, can run foreground or background, and mentions the polling pattern. It does not explicitly mention restart behavior, but that is covered in the schema for the replace parameter.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a clear usage distinction. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and references get_output for follow-up. Combined with the detailed schema, it provides sufficient context for the agent, though it could mention return format beyond 'log'.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a workflow for wait_seconds (quick check vs. leave running and poll), which goes beyond the parameter's raw schema description.

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 launches the game and captures output, with the ability to run the main scene or a specific scene. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing get_output for polling, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear guidance on two usage modes: using wait_seconds for a quick log check, or omitting it to keep the game running and poll with get_output. This provides context for when to use this tool and how to interact with a sibling, though it does not explicitly state exclusions.

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