emulator_status

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

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 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.