emulator_bridge_info

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.