ppsspp_dump_texture

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it declares READ-ONLY, details an error condition (CAPTURE_EMPTY) and prescribes a retry action, and explains the return format (structuredContent metadata plus ImageContent block). This exceeds the baseline needed when annotations are present.

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 compact and well-structured with bolded section labels (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS). Each sentence serves a distinct function—purpose, usage constraint, behavior/error, and output format—with zero filler or redundancy.

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 this is a simple tool with an output schema and annotations already covering safety and idempotency, the description provides all essential operational context: how to invoke it (session_id), what it captures (currently bound texture), what errors may occur and how to recover, and what output to expect. Nothing critical is missing 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description repeats that session_id is required and clarifies texture selection behavior, but this is largely redundant with the schema's own parameter descriptions. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Dump the currently-bound GPU texture as an image plus metadata.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it targets only the currently bound texture and not VRAM addresses, making it easy to differentiate from tools like ppsspp_screenshot or ppsspp_dump_clut.

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 provides clear context: it requires a session_id and only operates on the currently bound texture, explicitly excluding VRAM-address targeting. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, leaving some inferencing to the agent.

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