play_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Run the project' and 'play that scene' without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether it stops the currently running scene), return values, or prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a tool that launches the game.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the main action ('Run the project') and supplies necessary detail in a concise manner. No unnecessary words.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate, but it lacks important contextual details: what happens if an invalid scene path is given, whether the current scene is stopped first, and whether it blocks or returns immediately. These gaps make it only minimally complete.

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 schema has one parameter 'mode' with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining the valid values: 'main', 'current', or a res:// scene path. This adds crucial meaning that the schema lacks.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('project'/'scene'), and enumerates valid modes ('main', 'current', or a res:// path). This distinguishes it from siblings like stop_scene and run_test_scenario.

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 clear context on when to use the tool by listing the three modes of operation, implying it is for running the project or a specific scene. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name other tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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