editor_play

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 only says 'Play project from editor' and does not mention potential side effects, whether it blocks, or how it interacts with the editor's running state, which is insufficient for a tool that likely affects project execution.

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 extremely concise at five words, with no filler, and the key verb is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it might sacrifice useful context, making it slightly under-specified for a tool that could affect the editor's runtime.

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-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context such as whether it stops an already-running project, requires an open project, or how it differs from simply running the project externally. This is a clear gap but acceptable for a very simple action.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing to describe. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no param information but doesn't need to.

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 action (Play), resource (project), and context (from editor), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like run_project or launch_editor, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description simply states the action without indicating when to choose this tool over alternatives such as run_project or editor_stop, leaving it to the agent to infer based on sibling names.

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