Ensure the Playdate control agent is injected

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds useful context by calling it a diagnostic primitive and noting normal control tools inject automatically. It does not fully explain what happens when the agent is missing (e.g., whether it injects, errors, or waits), and readOnlyHint=false hints at side effects without spelling them out.

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?

Two terse sentences with no filler. The description front-loads the tool's identity and purpose, and the auto-injection note earns its place by telling the agent why this tool is not the normal path.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the definition covers the core purpose and relationship to normal control tools. It could add an explicit trigger condition, such as 'use when a control tool reports the agent is unavailable,' but the tool's simple shape makes this a minor omission.

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 single optional parameter 'pid' is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but the baseline 3 applies because the schema is complete.

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 states a specific function: a diagnostic primitive that finds the selected Simulator and ensures its control agent is available. The line 'Normal control tools inject automatically' distinguishes it from the sibling control tools. The title reinforces the target resource and action.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: 'Diagnostic primitive' and 'Normal control tools inject automatically' suggest this tool is a fallback for checking or forcing injection, not a routine control call. However, it does not explicitly state when to call it, what condition warrants it, or name an alternative tool to prefer.

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