ppsspp_get_pc

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description reveals that the CPU is paused temporarily for read consistency and then resumed, and that trust_level='high' is returned. This adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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-organized into PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, and RETURNS sections. Each line carries distinct information with no 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?

For a one-parameter read-only getter with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers session resolution, CPU pause/resume behavior, and trust_level. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents that session_id is optional and omitting it auto-resolves when exactly one session is active. The description's USAGE line essentially restates this, adding no new semantic meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Safely read the current Program Counter.' This unambiguously identifies the operation and its target, and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_memory, disassemble, or write_register.

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 USAGE line only addresses the optional session_id parameter ('optional when exactly one session is active') rather than explaining when to prefer this tool over alternatives. Selection guidance is implied by the PURPOSE statement, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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