ppsspp_run_script

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

The description explicitly declares 'STATE-CHANGE', matching the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). It adds behavioral context beyond annotations by naming error codes (SCRIPT_NOT_FOUND, SESSION_NOT_FOUND) and noting that skeleton scripts are non-functional. While it doesn't detail what state changes occur, the description covers the critical edge cases and the fact that it runs arbitrary registered code.

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 exceptionally well-structured with clear PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, and RETURNS sections. It is concise, with every sentence providing necessary information and no filler. The front-loaded purpose statement immediately tells the agent what the tool does.

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 tool that runs scripts with three parameters, an output schema, and a rich set of sibling tools, the description is complete. It covers how to obtain valid names, handles the session_id requirement, describes error behavior, and specifies the return shape. The agent has everything needed to call it correctly without additional lookups.

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 all three parameters (name, input, session_id) are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by referencing ppsspp_list_scripts for name discovery and clarifying the session_id priority, but these are largely restatements of schema hints. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load, and the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter meaning beyond that.

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 states a specific verb ('Invoke') and resource ('manifest-registered diagnostic script') with validated input, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like ppsspp_list_scripts (which lists scripts) and ppsspp_reload_scripts (which reloads). It even notes that skeleton scripts return not_implemented, further disambiguating expected behavior.

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 section explicitly tells the agent to get the script name from ppsspp_list_scripts, mentions that skeleton scripts return not_implemented, and clarifies the session_id requirement with the error SESSION_NOT_FOUND when missing. It also implies when not to use the tool (for skeleton scripts) without being verbose.

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