emulator_create_baseline

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.