spawn_play_status

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does disclose what the return covers (open state, URL, headed mode, error count, fleet read), which tells the agent this is a read-only status probe. It says nothing about auth requirements, side effects, or freshness of the data, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler and the scoping/routing note parenthesized at the end. It is slightly hard to parse because it opens mid-thought ('Whether a...') instead of front-loading a verb, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-argument status read with no output schema and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating the returned fields. An agent knows what it will get and where to go for more detail; only behavioral caveats like auth or data freshness are absent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies.

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 names a specific resource (play browser session status) and enumerates what state it reports, plus it points to spawn_savi_status for detail, which distinguishes it from that sibling. It is phrased as a fragment of outputs rather than an explicit verb+resource, but the purpose — reporting play session status — is clear.

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 routes the agent away for detail: '(spawn_savi_status has the detail)', implying this tool gives the summary and the sibling gives depth. However there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus spawn_status, spawn_client_status, or spawn_play_open, so usage is only implied.

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