Get MiSTer status

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing prerequisites (core and attract_mode require SSH), what capabilities/limitations mean, and the server-level dry_run flag that changes whether writes are executed. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with 'Start here.' and then dense, field-by-field explanation. A little run-on in the capabilities/limitations sentence, but nearly every clause conveys new semantics an agent must interpret output correctly.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return values, and instead explains the meaning of the harder fields (capabilities, limitations, core, attract_mode, dry_run). Complete for a zero-required-param read tool; only the sibling routing is missing.

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 100% and the host parameter is documented in the schema itself, so the description adds no further syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 the resource (MiSTer status) and enumerates exactly what the report contains: model, current game, capabilities, limitations, core, attract_mode. That is far more specific than the name alone, though it stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings like list_systems or get_ini.

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?

'Start here' is an explicit first-call directive, and the host note ('Omit when the call already says which (a ref does)') tells the agent precisely when the single parameter is unnecessary. No exclusion against sibling tools is stated, which keeps it below a 5.

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