Explains the Game Boy interrupt system, detailing each interrupt's vector, IE/IF bits, and priority when specified.
Explain the interrupt system, or one interrupt in detail.
Returns each vector with its IE/IF bit and priority; with an argument, adds the source's full documentation and the dispatch rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| which | No | '$40', '48', 'VBlank', 'STAT', 'Timer', 'Serial', 'Joypad'. Omit for all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses what the tool returns: each vector with its IE/IF bit and priority, plus optional full documentation and dispatch rules when an argument is supplied. No side effects or error conditions are mentioned, but none are strongly expected for a documentation lookup tool.
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 compact and well-structured: one sentence states the overall purpose, and one sentence details the output and argument-dependent behavior. There is no redundant or extraneous text.
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?
The description gives enough context for correct use: it explains what output to expect, what the optional parameter does, and what additional detail is provided when a specific interrupt is selected. Given the simple parameter surface and no output schema, this is sufficiently complete.
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?
The schema only specifies a nullable string, but the description's parameter documentation adds concrete accepted values ('$40', '48', 'VBlank', 'STAT', 'Timer', 'Serial', 'Joypad') and explains that omitting the argument returns all interrupts. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the type information.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: explaining the interrupt system or a single interrupt in detail. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on registers, opcodes, cartridges, and memory maps by targeting interrupts specifically.
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 usage when interrupt information is needed but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state when not to use it. It does explain the effect of providing or omitting the argument, which gives some practical guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.