desmume_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. While 'Report' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to disclose whether the process must be running, what happens if it isn't, or what the report contains (e.g., PID, state). This lack of transparency is a gap for an agent deciding whether to call the tool.

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, focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It immediately conveys the essential purpose, which is ideal for a simple status tool.

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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is adequate for understanding its basic function but incomplete about expected output and edge cases. It does not specify what the 'report' includes or any error behavior, which an agent might need to interpret the result.

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 the schema is an empty object, so no parameter documentation is needed. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not add anything unnecessary about parameters.

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 tool's function: 'Report the single DeSmuME process owned by this RE-MCP server instance.' It uses a specific verb ('Report'), names the resource (DeSmuME process), and specifies scope ('single', 'owned by this instance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like desmume_start or desmume_stop.

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 mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give any context on prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit hint is that it reports status, but this is not explicitly contrasted with other desmume_* tools.

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