desmume_capture_stop_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the capture is 'decoded' and 'bounded' but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what 'bounded' means in practice (e.g., memory length limits), whether a GDB connection is required, or what side effects (if any) the tool has. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond its basic action.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without extraneous words. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (capture registers and memory around PC/SP) appears first.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (two parameters, one a nested array for additionalRegions) and the absence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits any explanation of what the returned context looks like and does not mention the additionalRegions parameter, leaving the agent without critical information for correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention either parameter (timeoutMs or additionalRegions). An agent cannot infer that additionalRegions allows specifying extra memory regions to capture, nor does it understand the purpose of timeoutMs. The description adds no value to the parameter understanding.

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 uses the specific verb 'capture' and specifies the resource: 'decoded ARM9 registers and bounded memory around the current stopped PC and SP.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like desmume_read_register_packet (which reads raw registers) and desmume_read_memory (which reads raw memory), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'current stopped PC and SP' implies the tool is intended for use when the emulator is stopped, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like desmume_read_register_packet or desmume_read_memory. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so the guidance is only implied.

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