desmume_probe_gdb

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details. It does not disclose side effects, whether it is safe/read-only, what happens on failure, or what the tool actually does beyond 'probe'. The description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency and fails to provide it.

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 concise—a single short sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified, omitting any context about what 'probe' entails or what the result is. It is appropriately short but too terse to fully serve the agent.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or what constitutes a successful probe. It only names the action and target, leaving the behavioral contract unclear. For a simple tool this might be sufficient, but the lack of any expected outcome or edge-case information makes it incomplete.

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 0 parameters, and the schema is complete with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter information, but none is required because there are no parameters. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 a specific verb ('Probe') and names a concrete resource ('the owned localhost ARM9 GDB port'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like desmume_status or desmume_start. However, 'probe' is somewhat ambiguous—it could mean checking connectivity, sending a test packet, or waiting for availability—so it is not a perfect 5.

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 does not state when to use this tool, whether it should follow desmume_start or desmume_wait_for_gdb, or how it differs from desmume_status. There are no calls to alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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