dolphin_code

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: code injection and detours are inherently destructive and likely require an active process and elevated context, yet nothing about permissions, reversibility, side effects, or failure modes is stated. The timeoutMs parameter and its 0–300000ms bound are never mentioned in the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the main operations with no filler or hedging. It is efficient, though the list is incomplete (missing memoryRegions) and arrives with no structural cues for the multi-action layout.

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 multi-action tool with an untyped nested arguments object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin: per-action argument shapes, connection prerequisites, return behavior, and the fifth action are all absent. There is no output schema to defer return-value explanation to, so the gaps stand.

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 both the action enum and the untyped 'arguments' object (additionalProperties: {}) are undocumented. The description maps to only four of five action values and says nothing about which keys 'arguments' expects per action or what timeoutMs controls, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names four specific operations (find free memory, inject raw PPC code, create a detour, resolve a pointer chain), which is far more informative than the bare name 'dolphin_code'. However, it omits the fifth enum value 'memoryRegions' and gives no differentiation from siblings like dolphin_memory or dolphin_disassemble, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. a connected/running Dolphin session), and no exclusions. The line reads as a capability list rather than usage guidance, so the agent must guess context from sibling names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.