spawn_play_reload

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

With no annotations, the burden falls on the description. It states the action (reload) and hints at system behavior (rooms reshape in place), but doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether state is lost, if it's safe, or if it's synchronous). This is adequate for a simple reload but lacks the depth expected without annotation support.

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: the first clearly states the tool's action, the second provides a practical tip. No redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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 description covers the tool's core purpose and a key usage scenario, but with no output schema and partial parameter documentation, it's incomplete. It doesn't mention return values or behavior of the undocumented parameters, leaving gaps for a tool with four optional parameters.

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 only documents format and quality; waitMs and screenshot lack descriptions. The description doesn't clarify these parameters—its 'waiting ~1s' advice refers to waiting before invoking the tool, not to the waitMs parameter. Since schema coverage is only 50%, the description should compensate but doesn't, leaving agent uncertain about half the parameters.

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 opens with the specific action 'Reload the play tab' and contextualizes it with an example ('if a push didn't hot-apply to this client'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like spawn_play_screenshot or spawn_play_input, which have different purposes.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('if a push didn't hot-apply') and a strong recommendation to wait before reloading ('Prefer waiting ~1s after spawn_push first'), which effectively tells the agent when NOT to use this tool. It references the alternative (spawn_push) and explains the expected behavior (rooms usually reshape in place).

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