BizHawk Emulator MCP
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.1.0
- Disambiguation1/5
Many tools are aliases or wrappers for the same operations (e.g., emulator_step and bizhawk_step, emulator_tap and bizhawk_tap), making it unclear which to call. Even within the emulator_* group, save_state and create_baseline have blurred boundaries. Several tools appear to do the same thing.
Naming Consistency2/5Naming uses three inconsistent prefix schemes: emulator_, bizhawk_, and legacy aliases like gb_gpu_snapshot. While the core emulator_* tools are consistent, the mix of prefixes and verbose names like emulator_build_pair_contact_sheet breaks the pattern.
Tool Count2/5At 36 tools, many are redundant wrappers or aliases, inflating the count. The actual unique functionality could be covered by fewer tools, making the surface feel bloated and harder to navigate.
Completeness4/5Core emulator operations are well covered: status, stepping, input, reset, screenshot, save/load states, memory read, GPU snapshot, and scenario running. Minor gaps like memory write and ROM loading exist but do not severely hinder the apparent purpose.
Average 2.5/5 across 36 of 36 tools scored. Lowest: 1.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description doesn't state effects, side behaviors, or what the save operation captures. A save-state tool's behavioral footprint is entirely undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, extremely concise, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness since it provides almost no information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a stateful save operation with one parameter, zero annotations, zero output schema, and 0% schema coverage. The description adds essentially nothing, leaving the agent without critical operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'name' parameter, and the description adds zero parameter context. What 'name' represents and its constraints are entirely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says it's a 'GB-compatible wrapper for emulator_save_state,' implying it saves state, but it relies on understanding of the sibling tool. It doesn't state the verb+resource directly or differentiate meaningfully from emulator_save_state or bizhawk_load_state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It doesn't explain when to choose this GB-wrapper over the plain emulator_save_state or how persistence/recovery works.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain that this holds a button down for a number of frames, whether it auto-releases, what happens if already held, or side effects. 'Wrapper' tells the agent to look elsewhere for behavior, but the referenced tool isn't documented here.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is extremely short (one fragment), so it's efficient in length. However, this is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness — it's just unhelpfully brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and 2 required parameters. The single sentence does almost nothing to help an agent understand invocation, expected behavior, or return. For a 'hold' operation (non-trivial input semantics) this is severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and there are 2 required parameters (button, frames) that are completely undocumented. The description adds zero parameter semantics — an agent has no idea what button values are valid or what 'frames' represents (duration? count?).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'GB-compatible wrapper for emulator_hold' vaguely references another sibling tool but never states what the tool actually does — it never mentions 'hold' behavior, buttons, frames, or input. For an agent choosing among 30+ emulator tools, this is opaque and essentially a tautology referencing a sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other bizhawk_* variants or the emulator_* originals. 'GB-compatible wrapper' implies it targets Game Boy, but it doesn't explain when GB compatibility matters, differences from bizhawk_tap/release/press, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure. The description reveals essentially nothing: whether this is a read-only operation, what it returns, whether it requires an active emulator instance, or what happens when BizHawk is not running. For a status tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is maximally concise. However, this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness—it leaves out essential behavioral detail. A one-line description can earn a high conciseness score when it is information-dense (like the TDQS high example), but here the line conveys minimal information about what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description carries full responsibility for completeness. It mentions only that this is a GB-compatible wrapper for emulator_status, which leaves the agent entirely dependent on external knowledge of emulator_status. The description does not explain return format, error behavior, or what 'status' encompasses. This is far from complete for a tool that must stand on its own.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (the schema is empty). With no parameters, there is nothing for the description to add semantically. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, but the description also fails to explain what the status payload contains, so the agent has no idea what to expect from the return. Given there are no params to document, the score is capped slightly below baseline due to missing return-value context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'GB-compatible wrapper for emulator_status' conveys that it wraps emulator_status for GB compatibility, but it does not state what 'status' actually means, what it returns, or what specific data the agent can expect. It relies on the reader knowing what emulator_status does. It doesn't clearly state the verb+resource semantic. The name 'bizhawk_status' combined with this sparse description leaves the purpose only partially clear. It does distinguish itself as GB-specific among bizhawk_ siblings, but the underlying behavior is opaque.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No 'when to use' guidance is provided. The description implies this is the BizHawk-version of emulator_status but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over the generic emulator_status or the many other emulator_/bizhawk_ tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and no differentiation strategy beyond the GB-compat hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden, but it reveals nothing about what happens during execution - whether it blocks, mutates emulator state, requires the emulator running, or affects ongoing sessions. It does not describe results, side effects, or failure modes. For a stateful run-on-target tool, this is a substantial gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. It's appropriately short, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being a model of tight informative writing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation-style run tool with two parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only bare-minimum framing. It does not explain return values, valid target values, scenario file format, or relationship to sibling emulator scenario tools. Not enough for an agent to confidently invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no parameter information beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what 'path' should point to (file vs directory, supported format), nor what 'target' means or what valid values are (the default 'gb' hints at Game Boy but is unexplained). The two parameters are effectively undocumented by the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Run a JSON scenario file against a target' names a verb and resource, but terminology is vague - 'target' could refer to emulator, device, or platform, and 'scenario' is undefined. There is a sibling `emulator_run_pair_scenario` and `bizhawk_run_scenario`, yet no distinguishing details clarify how this differs from running a scenario against a pair or the bizhawk variant. The purpose is only minimally clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus `emulator_run_pair_scenario` or related scenario tools. Context is implicit (the tool name suggests it runs scenarios), but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, and the description doesn't clarify prerequisites like whether the emulator must be started or a scenario file format required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose whether this is a safe read operation, what happens on invalid addresses, whether the returned data is in a specific byte order or format, or how the GB wrapper maps to System Bus addresses. The word 'wrapper' suggests it delegates to emulator_read_memory but the behavioral differences (if any) are unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no waste, which is technically concise. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently complete — a concise but nearly empty description. For a one-line wrapper description it achieves minimal length but sacrifices meaningful content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a moderately complex tool (3 parameters, GB address translation wrapper, no annotations, no output schema) yet the description is a single phrase. It doesn't explain GB memory banking, address valid ranges, the relationship between domain and GB addresses, or return value semantics. The wrapper concept introduces translation complexity that is entirely unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds nothing about parameters. The address parameter accepts integer or string (likely hex) — the description doesn't clarify string format (e.g., '0x2000' vs decimal), and domain/length defaults are undocumented. The 'GB-compatible' hint implies address semantics differ from raw System Bus but doesn't explain how.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'GB-compatible wrapper for emulator_read_memory' identifies the tool as a wrapper for the sibling emulator_read_memory, giving it some directional clarity for GB (Game Boy) addresses. However, it doesn't explicitly state what the tool DOES (reads memory) with a clear verb+resource, instead relying on the reader to know that emulator_read_memory reads. It does weakly distinguish from siblings but the purpose remains implied rather than stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description hints this is for GB-compatible addresses, implying it should be used instead of emulator_read_memory when working within the GB memory mapping. But it provides no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of address range constraints, no formatting details, and doesn't state why a GB wrapper exists (e.g., address translation, banking).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description adds almost nothing beyond indicating compatibility with GB—no mention of side effects, what gets released, whether frames refers to time held or delay, or any state changes. For a tool with zero annotations, 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.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (9 words), which is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently comprehensive. There is no waste, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance, making this more under-specification than good conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter wrapper tool with no output schema and essentially no useful input schema description, the description should compensate heavily—but it doesn't. The agent is left with no clarity on behavior, return value, or when to use this tool. Compared to sibling tools like emulator_release, there's no information distinguishing their behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides zero parameter information. The single parameter 'frames' is undocumented—its default of 2 and meaning (release duration, hold delay?) are unexplained. With no schema description coverage and no description-level explanation, the agent must guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'GB-compatible wrapper for emulator_release' indicates the tool is a wrapper around emulator_release but doesn't state its actual verb/resource function. It's unclear what bizhawk_release actually does beyond delegating to emulator_release. Sibling names like bizhawk_press, bizhawk_hold, bizhawk_step suggest it releases a button/frames, but the description doesn't clarify the specific action or distinguish its behavior from emulator_release beyond 'GB-compatible'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this wrapper versus emulator_release directly or versus sibling bizhawk_* tools. It doesn't state the GB-specific context in which this should be preferred, making selection between bizhawk_release and emulator_release ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether reset destroys emulator state, what side effects occur, or how it differs behaviorally from emulator_reset. The nature of a reset operation (clearing state) is implied by the name but never disclosed explicitly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short — one clause. It is not verbose and wastes no words. However, brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, though there is nothing extraneous to cut.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% parameter description coverage. The description does nothing to compensate: no side effects, no parameter semantics, no use guidance. For a wrapper around a potentially state-destroying reset operation, this is severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter settle_frames is undocumented in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what settle_frames means (e.g., frames to wait after reset before returning). The description adds nothing about parameters beyond the schema's bare field definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'GB-compatible wrapper for emulator_reset.' It identifies that this is a wrapper but doesn't specify what the underlying emulator_reset does, what a reset accomplishes, or the scope. The verb 'wrapper' is not a direct action verb, and purpose is implied via indirection to a sibling rather than stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use bizhawk_reset versus the direct emulator_reset sibling. The description merely says it's a 'GB-compatible wrapper,' which hints at compatibility context but provides no exclusion or when-to-use guidance. No alternatives are discussed beyond the implicit reference to emulator_reset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state what side effects occur (does it alter emulator state? do operations persist?), what operations can be included in the sequence, whether it's safe/read-only, or any rate/state constraints. 'GB-compatible' hints at platform scope but offers no richer behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short ('GB-compatible sequence runner') with no wasted words, but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. A single terse phrase doesn't earn high marks for structure since it fails to front-load useful detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral detail. The description names 'sequence' as the core concept but leaves the reader without any understanding of the operations array format, acceptable operation types, return behavior, or error semantics. For a tool that takes an arbitrary operations list, this is materially incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'operations' parameter. The description mentions 'sequence' but never explains what the 'operations' array should contain or its structure. The schema's items allow any additional properties, making parameter semantics even more critical - and completely unaddressed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'GB-compatible sequence runner' gives only a vague verb+resource. 'Sequence runner' suggests it executes a sequence of operations on a GB emulator, but the purpose is unclear: what does 'sequence' mean, what does 'compatible' qualify, and how does this differ from the many sibling tools that all share the bizhawk_/emulator_ prefixes? The description doesn't name specific fields or behavior beyond 'runner'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With ~30 sibling tools including emulator_run_scenario, bizhawk_run_scenario, emulator_step, and many others, there is no statement of when run_sequence is appropriate or what differentiates it. The absence of any when/when-not guidance is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't disclose what 'tap' does (press and release a button), how GB-compatibility changes behavior versus emulator_tap, whether there are timing constraints, or what happens on failure. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the tool name itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (six words and a hyphenated modifier). While brevity is valued, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness—the description lacks substance. There's no wasted language, but there's also almost no content to evaluate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is severely incomplete. The term 'GB-compatible wrapper' hints at an emulator-specific context shared across the bizhawk_* siblings, but it doesn't clarify the tap semantics, frame timing behavior, or how it relates to the emulator_tap parent beyond being a wrapper.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the 3 undocumented parameters. It adds zero information about 'button', 'hold_frames', or 'release_frames'—their meanings must be inferred entirely from names and defaults. With 0% coverage and a terse two-word description, this is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'GB-compatible wrapper for emulator_tap' indicates this is a Game Boy variant of another tool, but it never states the actual action performed (tapping a button). It relies on the sibling tool name 'emulator_tap' to convey meaning. The verb 'tap' is implied only via the parent tool reference, and 'wrapper' is vague—it doesn't say what the wrapper does differently from the original.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use bizhawk_tap versus the emulator_tap sibling or the other bizhawk_* tools. The term 'GB-compatible wrapper' vaguely implies it's for Game Boy emulation, but there's no explicit statement about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Yet it discloses nothing beyond being a 'wrapper' — no detail on output format, file location, side effects, failure modes, or differences from the underlying emulator_screenshot. For a screenshot tool that presumably writes a file, this is a major transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no waste. However, it is under-specified rather than simply concise — 'GB-compatible wrapper for emulator_screenshot' is short but leaves the agent to infer essentially all behavioral specifics. Conciseness alone is not an asset when it omits crucial information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a screenshot tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description says only that it's a 'GB-compatible wrapper' without explaining the GB compatibility aspect, the screenshot naming/output behavior, or when to choose it over emulator_screenshot and emulator_gb_gpu_snapshot/gb_gpu_snapshot. Completely inadequate for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the single parameter 'name' (default 'shot') is not described in the description text. However, with only one optional simple string parameter with a sensible default, the schema largely self-documents it. The description adds nothing about naming conventions or file type, but the low complexity keeps this at baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'GB-compatible wrapper for emulator_screenshot' conveys that this tool takes a screenshot with Game Boy compatibility, and correctly references the parent tool. However, it doesn't state what the wrapper specifically changes (e.g., format, color profile) or what distinguishes it from the many bizhawk_* and emulator_* siblings besides the GB-compatibility note.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for Game Boy-related screenshots but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to emulator_screenshot or the other emulator/bizhawk siblings. It doesn't tell the agent when to prefer this over emulator_screenshot or how it differs, which is important since both exist as siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description adds nothing about behavior—no mention of what 'GB-compatible' means in practice, whether loading a state is destructive, what safety considerations apply, or how the behavior differs from the wrapped tool. For a state-loading operation, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It conveys minimal information without being verbose. Technically no wasted words, but the brevity borders on insufficient rather than well-crafted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should provide substantial context. It provides almost none beyond deferring to emulator_load_state. The term 'GB-compatible' hints at wrapped tooling but the agent gets no information about semantics, requirements, or relationship to the parent tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is only 1 parameter (name), and the schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. The description doesn't explain what 'name' refers to—presumably a save state name—but doesn't say. With a single simple string parameter, the baseline is moderate; the lack of any description for the parameter limits it to a 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'GB-compatible wrapper for emulator_load_state.' The verb+resource is implied (loads a state), and it references the parent tool emulator_load_state, which provides context. However, it doesn't explicitly state what it does—it relies on the reader knowing what emulator_load_state does. It does distinguish itself from the sibling emulator_load_state by noting it's a GB-compatible wrapper, but lacks a clear standalone statement of purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions it's a 'GB-compatible wrapper' but doesn't explain when GB compatibility matters, when to prefer this over emulator_load_state, or any caveats. No exclusions or context about the relationship between the bizhawk_* wrappers and the emulator_* originals.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output format (uppercase hex string), which is useful, but doesn't disclose potential side effects, whether reading from unmapped memory causes errors, addressing semantics (which domain means what), or behavioral differences between the emulator and bizhawk backends. The output format disclosure is a small positive but overall insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the purpose and output format. However, it's so minimal that it underspecifies rather than being efficiently concise. For the length of content provided, it's well-structured, but there's room to add value without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and nested sibling tools (bizhawk_read_memory) that suggest dual backends. Given this complexity, the description is inadequate — it would be hard for an agent to know what domains are valid, how to format addresses, what length units are, and how this differs from bizhawk_read_memory.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 4 parameters. It does not explain 'domain' (what domains are valid), what address formats are accepted (integer vs string presumably hex), what 'length' means in units, or what 'target' (gb) refers to. The description adds zero information beyond what the schema types provide, failing to compensate for the 0% coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Read a memory range and return its bytes as an uppercase hex string' with a specific verb+resource (read memory range) and describes the output format. It's clear in purpose. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish from the sibling bizhawk_read_memory tool, and the sibling emulator_step/emulator_status tools share similar emulator context, though read_memory is semantically distinct enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to read memory, why you'd use this over bizhawk_read_memory, or any context about emulator state requirements (e.g., must the emulator be running? must a ROM be loaded?). The description provides no usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails to disclose anything about what the tool does beyond being a wrapper. It doesn't state whether it's a read-only operation or mutating, what side effects occur, how long the scenario runs, what the execution produces, or how it relates behaviorally to the underlying emulator_run_scenario.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with zero wasted words. It's concise and front-loaded with the key identifier 'GB-compatible'. While under-specification means the content isn't helpful, what's present is efficiently stated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a single-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage. The description does nothing to compensate: no return behavior, no side effects, no path semantics, no execution details, no relationship to how scenarios are defined or invoked. For an agent to correctly use this, it must infer everything from the sibling 'emulator_run_scenario', which is effectively guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the 'path' parameter. It provides zero information about what path refers to (path to a scenario file? a script? a ROM?), the expected format, or constraints. With a single required parameter fully undocumented, the agent has no way to supply a valid value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'GB-compatible wrapper for emulator_run_scenario' identifies what the tool is and that it wraps another tool, which provides moderate clarity. However, it doesn't state the actual action (what a 'scenario' is or what running one does), and relies on the sibling tool's name for semantic meaning. It's distinct from siblings by prefacing with GB compatibility, but the core purpose of 'running a scenario' is undefined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is for GB-compatible scenarios via 'GB-compatible', which hints at when to use it (when working with Game Boy titles) vs the generic emulator_run_scenario, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions. It names no alternatives and provides no context about prerequisites or distinctions from emulator_run_sequence, emulator_step, or other scenario-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool returns version and capabilities but doesn't explain whether this is a read-only introspection call, what 'advertised capabilities' means concretely, or what the response format looks like. As a known read/introspection tool by naming convention, it implies safety, but the description doesn't state it. No output schema exists either, so the return format is entirely undefined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single declarative sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise in a well-designed way. For a one-line description, it's appropriately short.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is sparse. It identifies the tool's output at a high level (version and capabilities) but leaves the agent without concrete details: what target values are valid, what capabilities can be advertised, what the output looks like. Given the sibling bizhawk_bridge_info exists, the agent would benefit from understanding how these two relate, which is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and a single parameter ('target' with default 'gb'), the description adds nothing about what valid target values are. It doesn't explain that 'gb' is the default or what other values are valid. The parameter is evident from the schema but its accepted values and semantics are entirely undocumented. With such minimal schema coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool returns bridge.lua version and advertised capabilities for a target. It has a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('bridge.lua version and capabilities'), but 'advertised capabilities' is vague and doesn't distinguish it clearly from siblings like bizhawk_bridge_info, which appears to serve the same role for a different bridge. The tool name self-explains, and the description adds modest clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is a sibling bizhawk_bridge_info that likely serves the analogous purpose for a different backend, but the description doesn't mention it or give criteria for choosing between them. The 'target' parameter presumably selects the emulator backend, but this isn't explained. No when/where guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention 'raw' dump and 'diagnostic PNG panels' which hints at behavior, but it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether files are written to disk, whether output_dir is required for PNG generation, whether this is a read-only operation). For a diagnostic dump tool with zero annotation coverage, more transparency about outputs and side effects is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence with the two core behaviors (dump + render). It's front-loaded and there's no wasted verbiage. Could arguably be a bit under-specified rather than over-specified, but for what it conveys, it's compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No annotations, no output schema, 5 parameters at 0% description coverage, and a near-identical sibling tool (gb_gpu_snapshot). This is a moderately complex diagnostic tool that needs to explain what raw GPU data includes, where output files go, relationship to the sibling snapshot tool, and parameter behavior. The current single sentence is inadequate for an agent to invoke this correctly and understand its output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 5 parameters. It only explains the overall behavior (dump raw data, render PNGs) but doesn't explain what 'name', 'render', 'target', 'output_dir', or 'include_raw' individually do. Basic semantics can be inferred (render controls PNG generation, include_raw controls raw dump, output_dir for file location), but the description does not explicitly clarify these, leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Dump raw GB DMG GPU data and optionally render diagnostic PNG panels.' This gives a reasonably clear purpose (dump GPU data + optionally render PNGs). However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling sibling 'gb_gpu_snapshot' tool, which likely does something very similar. The tool name adds 'emulator_' prefix but the purpose overlap with gb_gpu_snapshot is not addressed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool instead of its near-duplicate sibling gb_gpu_snapshot, or versus other emulator_* inspection tools. There's no mention of debugging scenarios, when rendering panels is appropriate, or relationship to the other GPU snapshot tool. Usage context is entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the location (runtime/<target>/states) but provides no information about side effects, whether emulation state is altered, whether the emulator must be running, permissions needed, or what happens on failure. The 'alias' framing is itself cryptic—an alias of what?
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the action and location. While under-specified in content, it is efficiently written with no wasted words or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description must do substantially more to be complete. It fails to explain how baselines differ from save states, what the load behavior entails, error conditions, or how it relates to emulator_load_state and bizhawk_load_baseline. The 'alias' label suggests deeper underlying behavior that is left undocumented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter meaningfully. 'name' (default 'baseline') and 'target' (default 'gb') are self-evident from their names and defaults, but the description's mention of runtime/<target>/states only partially clarifies how 'target' maps to a directory. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema for parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it loads a named baseline state from runtime/<target>/states, which identifies the verb (load) and resource (baseline). However, it self-identifies as an 'Alias', creating ambiguity about how it differs from sibling tools like emulator_load_state and bizhawk_load_baseline. The purpose is clear enough but the alias framing and lack of differentiation from emulator_load_state undermines clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus emulator_load_state, emulator_create_baseline, or bizhawk_load_baseline. An agent would not know whether to call this or emulator_load_state to restore a saved state, nor how baselines differ from saved states. The description offers no context for discriminating between the many sibling emulator tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether loading overwrites current emulator state, whether the target emulator must be running, what happens on failure (missing state file), or whether this affects the running game session. For a state-mutation operation, this is a meaningful gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is arguably under-specified rather than concise — while it has a clean structure, it lacks sufficient content to be genuinely useful. It's borderline between appropriate brevity and inadequate detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify the state file naming convention, the target values supported, failure behavior, or how this relates to the many sibling save/load tools. A more complete description is needed given the lack of structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the two undocumented parameters (name and target). It does not explain what 'name' refers to (a file name? a key?), nor what 'target' values are valid ('gb' is the default but no enum or list of options is given). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the bare schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource ('Load a BizHawk state from the target runtime states directory'), clearly indicating this is a state-loading operation. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like emulator_load_baseline, bizhawk_load_state, or bizhawk_load_baseline, which appear to serve similar functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. There is no indication of when to prefer this over emulator_load_baseline or the bizhawk_* equivalents, nor any context about the relationship between the 'runtime states directory' and other state sources. The description leaves the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the release action but doesn't explain implications: whether this is a no-op when buttons aren't held, whether it varies input state persistently, or what the 'target' parameter affects. 'Release' implies state mutation but details are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence - concise in length. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It gives the basic action but omits parameter explanations and usage context that would be valuable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and 2 parameters. For a state-mutating tool that releases input buttons, the description should explain target semantics, state requirements, and interaction with hold/tap. It's far too minimal for the operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'for N frames' mapping to the frames parameter, but provides no meaning for 'target' (likely platform selection like gb, but undocumented). At 0% coverage with 2 parameters and no description detail about them, this scores low.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Release all known buttons for N frames' clearly states the verb (release) and resource (all known buttons) with a duration parameter. However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool bizhawk_release, which likely serves a similar purpose for a different platform, and 'all known buttons' is somewhat ambiguous about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the difference from emulator_tap, emulator_hold, or the bizhawk_release sibling. The description just states what happens, not when to choose it or what state requirements exist (e.g., buttons must be held first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals it does not do visual diffing, but does not disclose whether it writes files, mutates state, requires a running emulator, handles both GB and MD simultaneously, or what 'collect outputs' produces. Significant behavioral gaps for a tool that likely mutates emulator state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with zero waste. It's efficiently worded, though brevity borders on under-specification given the ambiguity of the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage on its only parameter, the description is markedly incomplete. The 1-parameter tool with no output schema and no safety annotations needs to explain the 'path' parameter, the return behavior, side effects, and prerequisites — none of which are addressed. Extreme simplicity of the schema could justify some leniency, but the 'paired scenarios' concept is opaque enough to warrant more explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage and a single 'path' parameter, the description must explain what the path refers to (scenario script file? emulator directory?). The description completely fails to clarify the meaning of 'path' — leaving the agent to guess whether it's a scenario file path, config path, or working directory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool runs paired GB and MD scenarios and collects outputs without visual diffing. This is reasonably specific (verb=run, resource=paired GB/MD scenarios) and distinguishes from sibling emulator_run_scenario. However, it doesn't clarify why 'paired' is distinct or what 'collect outputs' means concretely, and the scope of the pairing could be clearer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'without visual diffing' which implicitly contrasts with sibling tools emulator_build_pair_diffs and emulator_build_pair_contact_sheet, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus those alternatives, nor does it provide guidance on when paired execution is appropriate. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Neutral frames before and after' gives some behavioral context (the action is framed by idle frames), and the default hold/release frame parameters imply timing behavior, but it doesn't disclose what happens on failure, whether a device must be initialized, or side effects. The parameter defaults partially communicate the press-and-release timing but are not part of the description itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately short but perhaps underspecifies for a tool with 4 unchecked parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and many closely-related siblings (hold, release, press, tap across emulator and bizhawk namespaces), the description is far too thin. It doesn't explain parameter semantics, target default meaning, how it differs from emulator_hold/release, or what state is affected. The neutral-frames mention is the only meaningful depth.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and there are 4 parameters (button, target, hold_frames, release_frames) with no enum constraints. The description adds no meaning to any parameter—'Tap one button' only implies 'button' is the one being tapped. With zero coverage and no description support, parameters like target (default 'gb' meaning Game Boy) and hold/release frames are completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Tap one button' which identifies the verb and resource, but does not specify what this does in emulator terms (press and release a button briefly). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like emulator_hold, emulator_release, or bizhawk_tap—the purpose is clear only in the most basic sense.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use tap vs hold vs release. Given the sibling set includes emulator_hold, emulator_release, and bizhawk_tap, the description provides no context for choosing among these alternatives. The mention of 'neutral frames before and after' hints at usage timing but doesn't explain why or when that matters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'alias' and 'GB-compatible' but doesn't explain what happens on save, whether it overwrites an existing baseline with the same name, whether it requires an active ROM loaded, or any side effects. For a state-saving mutation, this is insufficient disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with no wasted words. However, the use of the term 'alias' is potentially confusing and slightly under-explains. Still, for brevity it scores well.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a state-mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, but the description provides only a terse one-liner. It doesn't address the important relationship to the emulator_create_baseline sibling, what 'GB-compatible' means operationally, error conditions, or the save behavior. For a tool setting a persistent baseline state, the description is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter 'name' exists, and the description tells us it's the baseline's name, which is a minimal match to the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description is the sole source, and it doesn't clarify naming constraints (e.g., unique? overwrite behavior on name collision? character restrictions?). The description adds only the most basic meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it creates a named baseline state but describes it as a 'GB-compatible alias'. It doesn't clearly specify what a 'baseline' is relative to the sibling emulator_create_baseline, and the term 'alias' implies it maps to another tool without explaining how or why this GB-specific version differs. The purpose is partially clear but the 'alias' framing creates ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this vs emulator_create_baseline or bizhawk_load_baseline. The sibling list includes both emulator_create_baseline and bizhawk versions, but the description doesn't clarify the relationship between them, which GB variant means, or when one should be preferred over the other.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It labels this as an 'alias' but doesn't explain what loading a baseline state does behaviorally — whether it resets the emulator, whether pending state is lost, or what happens if the named baseline doesn't exist. 'Alias' implies it delegates to another tool, but the exact behavior and failure modes are undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The one-sentence description is extremely brief and has no waste, but it's under-specified rather than concisely complete. It front-loads the purpose effectively but offers no additional structured detail, making the efficiency low-value because the single sentence carries nearly no behavioral or usage information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. Given the complex sibling landscape (multiple load_state and load_baseline variants across emulator_ and bizhawk_ prefixes), the description should explain the difference from bizhawk_load_state and from emulator_load_baseline, plus the relationship to baseline creation. A single sentence falls well short of the burden required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'name' parameter. The description calls it a 'named baseline state' which gives some context (it's an identifier), but doesn't specify format, conventions, whether names must be pre-created via bizhawk_create_baseline, or uniqueness requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('load') and resource ('named baseline state'), with the 'GB-compatible alias for' framing revealing this is an alias for emulator_load_baseline. The purpose is specific and intelligible, though the sibling bizhawk_load_state vs bizhawk_load_baseline distinction is only partially delineated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates it's a 'GB-compatible alias,' implying it should be used for Game Boy contexts, but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance. It doesn't distinguish when to use this vs emulator_load_state/bizhawk_load_state vs bizhawk_load_baseline/emulator_load_baseline, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not state effects (advancing emulation state), whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, whether it requires an active emulator session, or what happens if frames is unreasonable. Calling it a 'wrapper' hints at delegation but reveals nothing about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with zero wasted words. Extremely efficient, though it is arguably under-specified rather than tautologically concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one parameter, no output schema, no annotations, and a parameter of unclear semantics (0% coverage), the description is too thin to fully enable correct invocation. The 'GB-compatible wrapper' framing is useful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and parameter details. Sibling tool overload (bizhawk_step among many bizhawk_* variants) further raises the bar for differentiation, which this description does not meet.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'frames' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides no semantics for it beyond the name itself. An agent reading 'frames' can infer it's a count, but nothing states whether it means output frames, input frames, or emulated frames per step; the description offers no added meaning over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'GB-compatible wrapper for emulator_step' identifies the verb (step) and the resource (emulator_step), but it's vague about what 'step' actually does. The term 'GB-compatible' suggests Game Boy compatibility, but the description never states that this advances the emulator by a given number of frames. It relies on the sibling tool emulator_step to convey meaning implicitly rather than stating its own purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this wrapper vs the generic emulator_step, or vs bizhawk_tap/hold/release alternatives. The 'GB-compatible' prefix hints at some specialization but doesn't explain the distinction, such as whether the underlying emulator is fixed to GB or how frames map to real time.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description discloses that this is an alias pointing to another tool, which is transparent about the indirection, but it reveals nothing about the actual behavior: whether this reads or mutates emulator state, whether it writes files to output_dir, what a snapshot entails, or any side effects. For an unannotated tool with real parameters like output_dir, this is a meaningful gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tight sentence that states the alias relationship and the canonical target with the fixed target='gb' parameter. It is front-loaded and efficient with zero waste. It could arguably be slightly more informative, but for an alias description it is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, and given that the actual behavior of the underlying GPU snapshot tool is never described, the completeness is weak. The description tells the agent what this tool IS (an alias) but not what the GPU snapshot operation does, when to use it, or what its return/value is. The alias pointer partially compensates by routing the agent to emulator_gb_gpu_snapshot, but the description alone leaves an agent relying on the canonical tool's own documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and there are 3 parameters (render, output_dir, include_raw). The description adds zero parameter-specific information beyond the schema. However, since the description explicitly declares this is a pure alias for emulator_gb_gpu_snapshot with target='gb' fixed, the parameter semantics are effectively inherited from the referenced tool. Given the alias framing, the agent can reasonably look up the canonical tool's schema; a baseline 3 is appropriate but no extra semantic value is added here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies this as a 'Legacy-short alias' for emulator_gb_gpu_snapshot(target='gb'), which communicates it's a redirect but does not state what the underlying tool actually does or what a GPU snapshot is. The purpose is implied through the alias relationship and the tool name, but the agent must infer the actual function. It does distinguish from siblings by naming the canonical target, but the actual behavior is opaque.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly directs that emulator_gb_gpu_snapshot(target='gb') is the canonical equivalent, which implicitly tells the agent this is a redirect to that tool. However, it offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not explain why an agent would pick this alias versus calling the canonical tool, versus any of the other emulator_* sibling tools. The use context is entirely dependent on the agent already knowing what GPU snapshots are for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't reveal whether rebuilding overwrites an existing contact sheet, requires specific emulator state (running, state loaded), what happens if pair_summary.json is missing or malformed, or whether this is a read-only operation. The word 'rebuild' implies some mutation, but side effects are undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the main action and object. For a tool with one parameter, this level of brevity is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there's no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should be more thorough. The tool takes a file path and rebuilds something with side effects, but doesn't describe the output, error conditions, or dependencies on other emulator operations. For a tool that reads and writes files, this is notably incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the single parameter pair_summary_path. The description mentions 'existing pair_summary.json' which partially aligns with the parameter name, but doesn't specify path format, required file location, or expected file structure. The parameter name itself is fairly self-explanatory, providing some baseline meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource ('Rebuild a pair contact sheet from an existing pair_summary.json'), which clarifies the tool's core operation. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling emulator_build_pair_diffs or explain what a 'pair contact sheet' is or what it's used for. The purpose is understandable for someone familiar with the domain but lacks explanatory depth.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (rebuilding when you have a pair_summary.json) but provides no mention of when this is preferable to alternatives like emulator_build_pair_diffs. There's no guidance on prerequisites, ordering relative to other emulator build tools, or when rebuilding is necessary versus initial creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it returns button names/states, which implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify whether this reflects the physical controller input or the emulated game state, whether it requires the emulator to be running, or what happens when target is invalid. The output format (JSON shape) is unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence with no filler. It's efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. One could argue it's under-specified rather than concise, but for the minimal content it conveys, it's clean and straightforward.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple introspection tool with 1 optional param and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the target parameter and the format of returned data. The absence of any mention of the target parameter and the unspecified output shape make it incompletely documented, especially given that siblings like emulator_tap/hold/release imply a broader input-control workflow this tool feeds into.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and there's a single 'target' parameter with default 'gb'. The description never mentions the target parameter at all, nor explains what valid values are (gb vs others like gba, nes). Since the schema provides no description for the parameter, the burden falls on the description, which completely omits it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Return current BizHawk joypad button names/states' clearly states the verb (Return) and resource (BizHawk joypad button names/states). It identifies this as a read-oriented introspection tool. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like emulator_status or emulator_bridge_info, though the joypad scope is reasonably distinctive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this vs alternatives. There's no mention of when someone would need button states (e.g., reading inputs for automation), no exclusion criteria, and no relationship to emulator_tap/hold/release tools. The 'target' parameter purpose is unclear from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is an alias (implying it maps to another operation), and specifies the file location pattern (runtime/<target>/states). However, it doesn't disclose behavioral details like whether this overwrites existing baselines, whether it differs from emulator_save_state in persistence, or any side effects. Some behavioral context is added beyond what annotations provide, but it's thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that packs the core purpose effectively. It provides a clear location pattern which is more specific than typical. While terse, it's not bloated with filler. However, it lacks details that could be included in that same concise format, so while tight, it leaves coverage gaps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation-style tool (saving state) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It doesn't explain the distinction from emulator_save_state (which is a sibling — how do they differ?), whether the baseline can be later loaded via emulator_load_baseline (which sibling context implies but isn't stated), or any side effects of creating a baseline. This tool is related to a substantial sibling family (save_state, load_state, load_baseline, create_baseline across emulator and bizhawk variants), and the description doesn't help navigate that complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. The description names 'name' and 'target' only implicitly via the path pattern runtime/<target>/states, but doesn't directly explain what each parameter means for this tool. 'name' defines the baseline identifier and 'target' selects the emulator platform — these could be inferred but aren't explicitly described. Two params with 0% schema coverage means the description should do substantially more than it does.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states this is an alias for saving a named baseline state, with a specific target location (runtime/<target>/states). It clarifies the action (saving a baseline state) and the resource (runtime states). It doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like emulator_save_state or bizhawk_create_baseline, but the term 'baseline' provides some differentiation. The purpose is understandable but lacks the explicit scoping clarity that would earn a 4.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus emulator_save_state, emulator_load_baseline, or other alternatives. While the alias nature implies it's a convenience wrapper for saving state, the description doesn't explain why an agent would choose this over the sibling emulator_save_state tool. No when/when-not guidance or pointing to alternatives is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description adds only that it's a 'wrapper' for emulator_bridge_info, telling the agent nothing about safety (read vs. write), side effects, or behavioral traits. The tool has zero parameters, so it's a pure query, but the description never communicates that this is a non-destructive info-retrieval operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise phrase with no wasted words. It's efficient, though arguably too terse—one could consider it under-specification, but for a zero-parameter wrapper tool, brevity is largely acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters that could explain the tool's output, the description must clarify what the tool returns or provides. Calling it a 'wrapper for emulator_bridge_info' assumes the agent already understands emulator_bridge_info, which for a GB-compatible layer is not guaranteed. The description would benefit from noting what data the info bridge exposes (status, ROM info, etc.).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously, as there are no properties). Since there are no parameters requiring documentation, the baseline 4 for 0-param tools applies. No additional param semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says it's a 'GB-compatible wrapper for emulator_bridge_info', which identifies the function as a wrapper adapting the emulator_bridge_info tool to GB contexts. However, it doesn't state what 'bridge info' actually does or returns, so the agent doesn't know what this tool accomplishes beyond being a wrapper of a sibling whose own purpose is also unclear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates this is a GB-compatible wrapper variant, which implies it should be used when GB-specific compatibility is needed, but it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance, nor does it differentiate from emulator_bridge_info beyond the GB-wrapper framing. With many sibling emulator_* and bizhawk_* tools, the agent gets no clear decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Save' implies a write operation, but the description doesn't clarify whether the operation is destructive to existing saves, whether it overwrites prior states with the same name, whether it requires an active emulator session, or what side effects occur. It does convey the key action (saving state), but omits side effects and prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately brief, though this brevity comes at the cost of missing useful context that completeness scores penalize.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with zero annotations, zero schema description coverage, two fully-undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling set with overlapping functionality, this description is insufficient. The agent has no information about 'target' semantics, save name behavior, overwrite behavior, or how this differs from the bizhawk_save_state sibling. A mutation tool with this much ambiguity should provide more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter details at all. The 'name' parameter (default 'state') and 'target' parameter (default 'gb') have no explanation in either the schema or the description - the meaning of 'target' in particular is ambiguous (is it a file type, a device, a path?). The description adds zero parameter-level value beyond the schema's defaults and names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Save a BizHawk state') with a specific resource (target runtime states directory). However, it doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like bizhawk_save_state, emulator_load_state, or emulator_create_baseline - the purpose is clear but not differentiated from closely related siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With siblings like emulator_load_state, emulator_create_baseline, bizhawk_save_state, and emulator_run_scenario present, the absence of any when/when-not guidance is a notable gap. The description provides no context for choosing this over the bizhawk_-prefixed versions or other emulator_ state tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Rebuild' implies overwriting existing crop diffs and contact sheets, but the description doesn't state whether existing files are overwritten, what canonical means in this context, or whether this mutates any persistent state. For a tool that regenerates artifacts, these behavioral details are notably absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that conveys the tool's purpose efficiently. Zero waste, no filler, front-loaded with the primary action. Very effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description carries significant weight. For a tool that rebuilds artifacts (implying potentially long-running or mutating operations), key contextual details are missing: what outputs are produced, where they're written, whether it's idempotent, and how it relates to emulator_build_pair_contact_sheet. The single-sentence description leaves substantial gaps for an agent to operate confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The single parameter 'pair_summary_path' is contextually implied to be a JSON file path, and the description references it directly. However, no additional detail is given about expected format, relative vs absolute paths, or file location conventions. The baseline for 1 simple param with 0% coverage is moderate; this is adequate but not enriching.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Rebuild canonical crop diffs and the contact sheet') and the specific input ('existing pair_summary.json'). It's a specific verb+resource combo that distinguishes this from the sibling emulator_build_pair_contact_sheet, which only builds the contact sheet portion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The existence of emulator_build_pair_contact_sheet as a sibling implies a potential overlap, but the description doesn't clarify when to choose one over the other. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a pair_summary.json must already exist or how it's created) beyond implying the input must already exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it returns a path but doesn't disclose critical behavioral details: where the screenshot is saved, in what format, behavior if the target is not running/connected, whether the file is overwritten if it already exists, or whether file naming collisions are handled. For a tool that writes files to disk, this is a meaningful transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with zero filler words. Every word earns its place. It's appropriately front-loaded with the action verb 'Save'. It could be argued it errs on the side of being too terse rather than over-verbose, which is the better failure mode for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the parameter coverage is 0%, there are no annotations, and no output schema exists, the description is under-specified for the tool's complexity. The tool writes a file (implying filesystem side effects) and has two parameters whose semantics are opaque. With sibling tools like gb_gpu_snapshot existing, the description should clarify how a screenshot differs from a GPU snapshot. This description is adequate for a trivial tool but lacks needed behavioral and parametric context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides essentially no parameter information. The two parameters (name, target) are only documented by their schema titles and defaults. The description mentions 'for a target' which hints at the target parameter's role, and 'return its path' hints that name may generate the filename, but these are implicit and marginal. A dedicated sentence explaining name and target would add value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb+resource: 'Save a screenshot for a target and return its path.' It clearly describes the action (save screenshot) and the scope (for a target). It distinguishes reasonably from siblings, which cover other emulator operations (status, step, tap, etc.), though the sibling bizhawk_screenshot exists but the description doesn't differentiate between emulator vs bizhawk implementations beyond the tool naming convention.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that there are alternative screenshot tools (bizhawk_screenshot, gb_gpu_snapshot) or when one might be preferred over another. The description gives no context about prerequisites (e.g., emulator must be running) or when capturing a screenshot is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries full burden. It discloses the max frames per call (600), which is useful, but doesn't say whether this is a blocking call, whether it affects emulator state deterministically, what happens on error, or whether frames advanced are actual CPU frames vs game frames. The 'neutral/released' qualifier hints at simulator behavior but is unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single efficient sentence that conveys core function and the key constraint (max 600). No wasted words. Could benefit from minimally more parameter detail but is appropriately terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
It's a state-mutation tool (advancing time) with no annotations, 0% param coverage, no output schema, and a 'target' param that's unexplained. Given the sibling presence of bizhawk_step and many emulator variants, the description doesn't clarify target semantics or how step results are observed (via emulator_status/screenshot presumably), leaving significant gaps for agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'frames' (the step count) and the max limit, but doesn't explain the 'target' parameter at all — whether it selects emulator instance (gb vs something else), and why it defaults to 'gb'. The 'target' parameter is entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+action: 'Advance the emulator by N neutral/released frames.' This distinguishes from siblings like emulator_tap/hold/release which are input actions, and from emulator_status which reads state. However, 'neutral/released' is a bit ambiguous without context on what that means in emulator terms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage: stepping the emulator forward in time. But gives no guidance on when to use this vs emulator_run_scenario or run_pair_scenario, and no indication of what 'neutral/released frames' means practically or when stepping is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool reboots the core (a destructive-ish action) and mentions settling with neutral input, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose whether the reboot clears saved state, memory, or baselines, or whether it's safe to interrupt.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence that front-loads the action. It's economically written with no filler, though it could arguably add a second sentence explaining the settle behavior more precisely without much cost.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool with zero annotations, the description provides the core purpose and one parameter's meaning ('N frames') but leaves target undefined and gives no return/state disclosure. For a side-effecting reboot operation this is borderline adequate but has noticeable gaps, especially given the two similar backends (emulator vs bizhawk) present in siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. 'target' (default 'gb') is vaguely alluded to by the term 'core' but never explicitly explained as selecting the emulator platform. 'settle_frames' is partially explained by 'for N frames' in the description, but neither parameter's meaning, constraints, or format is spelled out.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb+resource ('Reboot the emulator core') and adds meaningful detail about settling with neutral input for N frames. While it clearly describes what it does, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the many sibling reset-like tools (bizhawk_reset exists).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like bizhawk_reset, emulator_save_state/load_state, or create_baseline. The sibling list contains a very similar 'bizhawk_reset' tool which represents a distinct backend, but nothing distinguishes when to pick emulator_reset over it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavior ('without releasing afterward'), which is the critical trait distinguishing it from tap. However, it omits whether holding can be stopped or how the button gets released, and there are sibling tools (emulator_release, emulator_reset) that suggest release mechanisms exist but aren't referenced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that conveys the essential operation and key behavioral constraint. There is minimal waste, though it is slightly under-specified in that it doesn't address parameter semantics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is lean for this tool's complexity. The 'frames' and 'button' semantics are partially conveyed, but 'target' and release behavior are unaddressed. For a tool in a family with tap/release/step siblings, more guidance on interaction with those tools would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'frames' means 'N frames' of hold duration, which is useful. However, it doesn't document what 'button' values are valid (though emulator_buttons tool exists as a source), what 'target' accepts beyond the default 'gb', or any default behavior nuances for the three optional parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action clearly: 'Hold one button for N frames without releasing afterward.' This uses a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like emulator_tap (press and release) and emulator_release. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, which would strengthen differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a clear use case (holding a button for a sustained duration) and the 'without releasing afterward' clarifies a key behavioral distinction. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs. emulator_tap/emulator_release, nor does it state the behavior of releasing the button before a subsequent press.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Since this is a read-only status/introspection tool, the risk is low and 'Return status' clearly implies no side effects. However, the description doesn't disclose behaviors like whether it connects to a running emulator, requires an active session, or what happens if the emulator isn't running.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, zero waste. Every word earns its place by naming the verb, resource, and the three data categories returned.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only status tool with one optional parameter, the description is reasonably complete. It names what data is returned (system, frame, screen size). However, no output schema exists, so the return format is unexplained, and target semantics are ambiguous in a context with both gb and bizhawk emulators.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and there is only one parameter, 'target'. The description mentions 'for a target' but does not explain what 'target' means, valid values, or format. With no schema descriptions and no enums, the single parameter's semantics are almost entirely unexplained despite being the only input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Return emulator status' for a 'target' covering 'system, frame, screen size.' This clearly states what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like emulator_bridge_info or bizhawk_status, but the scope (system, frame, screen size) provides reasonable differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like emulator_bridge_info or bizhawk_status. The 'target' parameter defaults to 'gb', implying there may be multiple targets, but no context is provided about which targets are valid or when this status call is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately discloses the exact mapping (hold_frames=frames, release_frames=2), making the behavioral contract explicit: the button is held for 'frames' count and released over 2 frames. This is a precise behavioral specification for a mutation/input tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that fully specifies the tool's behavior, including exact parameter mapping. This is maximally concise - no filler, every word carries meaning. It front-loads the identifier ('Legacy GB alias') and follows with the precise expansion.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter alias with no output schema, this description is fairly complete. However, it's an input/control tool with no annotations, so it doesn't clarify whether this requires a running emulator, whether it works with any button string, or what the return value is. The effect on emulator state (press, hold for frames, release over 2 frames) is clear, but operational prerequisites are absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. Both parameters are effectively documented: 'button' is the button to press, and 'frames' is mapped to hold_frames with the alias semantics explained. The description adds the default release_frames=2 value and the hold_frames=frames mapping, which goes beyond what the bare schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly identifies itself as a legacy alias for the tap operation, stating the exact equivalent call (`tap(button, hold_frames=frames, release_frames=2)`). The purpose is unambiguous - it's an alias for tapping with configurable hold frames. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the emulator_ siblings, but its 'legacy GB' framing distinguishes it from the newer command family.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states it's a 'Legacy GB alias', which implies it should be used only for backward compatibility with the older GB command set, and that the newer `tap` equivalent exists. This gives partial guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly say 'use tap instead' or list exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/KanonZombie/emulator-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server