ppsspp_gpu_record

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals the output destination (output/gpu_dumps/), the binary (non-JSON) format, and the MCP pre-probe error conversion. It explicitly says READ-ONLY, which is consistent with annotations, and adds meaningful behavioral context not visible in the schema.

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 organized into four compact labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS) and front-loads the key facts. Every sentence carries operational value with no filler.

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 single-parameter tool with a rich annotation set and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, output behavior, and return shape. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and understand the result without looking up additional context.

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 session_id parameter is already documented as 'Active session ID.' The description only repeats 'session_id' in USAGE without adding extra syntax, validation, or format semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Capture the next rendered frame's GE command stream as a binary dump file.' This clearly identifies the tool's operation and distinguishes it from sibling GPU tools like ppsspp_gpu_stats or ppsspp_screenshot.

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?

It states the only required input, session_id, and gives an explicit precondition: the CPU must be RUNNING, with a concrete explanation of why and the resulting CPU_STATE_ERROR. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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