desmume_wait_for_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions waiting on a running target, but does not explain timeout behavior, what happens if the target is already stopped, failures, or whether this command interacts with breakpoints. This is a significant gap.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the key action. It avoids unnecessary words, but its brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral and parameter information. Given the need for more detail, a longer description could still be concise.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the basic purpose but not return values, side effects, timeout semantics, or parameter usage. For a tool that likely interacts with emulator state, the description is 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 input schema has 0% coverage from the description, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (timeoutMs, captureContext, additionalRegions). The agent must rely solely on the schema, which provides minimal semantic guidance. The description adds no value for 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 specific action: waiting for a currently running ARM9 target to stop. The phrase 'without issuing a new continue command' distinguishes it from the sibling desmume_continue and implies it is used after a continue or step has been issued.

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 when to use this tool: when an ARM9 target is currently running and you want to wait for it to stop naturally. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a user familiar with the desmume tool family.

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