bizhawk_run_scenario

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.