run_gauntlet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'full game instance' but fails to convey important traits such as side effects, duration, blocking behavior, or how results are returned. This is a significant gap for a test-launching tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action and no wasted words. It is concise and easy to scan, though it could have included more critical details without becoming bloated.

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 launches a full game instance, which is a complex operation, but the description lacks essential context such as prerequisites, output/result retrieval, or how it relates to get_test_results. With no output schema, the description should explain what happens after launch, which it does not.

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 each parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Launch') and resource ('Gauntlet test session via UAT'), making it clear this tool runs Gauntlet tests in a full game instance. This distinguishes it from sibling automation test tools like run_automation_test and run_map_check.

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 context of running via UAT and in a full game instance implies the use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like run_automation_test or run_automation_tests_by_category. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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