run_gauntlet

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the high-level action and omits details like whether the session is blocking, requires a connected editor, produces logs, or has side effects on the game instance. It does not contradict annotations but leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 short sentences, directly front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word adds value and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate by explaining expected outcomes, side effects, or usage context. It does not address what the agent can expect after launching, how it relates to other test tools, or any operational requirements, making it incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, failing to clarify parameter interactions or defaults beyond the schema's existing 'Development' default.

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 action: 'Launch a Gauntlet test session via UAT' and adds a key detail ('Runs tests in a full game instance') that differentiates it from simpler automation test tools. It uses a specific verb+resource structure, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for disambiguation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like run_automation_tests_by_category or run_all_automation_tests. The description merely states what it does without specifying prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions.

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