desmume_capture_runtime_evidence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'atomically' and 'without interpreting' but omits critical behavioral context: whether the emulator must be paused, whether the operation modifies emulator state, file output location, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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, highly concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and key qualifiers efficiently, earning its place despite its brevity.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters. The description gives only a high-level overview, omitting prerequisites (e.g., running emulator, pause state), file format details, and how the regions parameter is used. This is inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly without further inference.

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 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the meaning of 'output', 'project', or 'regions'. The description mentions 'memory regions' but does not map to the regions parameter or explain the output structure. With three undocumented parameters, the description provides negligible semantic value.

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 a specific action: 'Atomically save raw ARM9 registers and bounded memory regions without interpreting them.' The verb 'save' combined with the resource (ARM9 registers and memory regions) is unambiguous. It also differentiates from sibling read/analysis tools by emphasizing atomicity and non-interpretation.

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 implies its use for capturing raw runtime evidence without interpretation, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like desmume_capture_stop_context or desmume_read_memory. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative mention, leaving the decision to the agent.

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