bizhawk_bridge_info

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.