Search for games

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — that the search fans out across every MiSTer, that duplicates across hosts are returned twice with distinct refs, and what `variant` disambiguates. It stops short of noting limits or empty-result behavior.

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?

Three short, front-loaded paragraphs with no filler; the matching rule and scope come first. Some of the result-shape explanation (ref, variant) is arguably redundant given an output schema exists, but it is brief and earns its place through the cross-host duplicate caveat.

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 four-parameter read-only search with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious parts: multi-host fan-out, duplicate results, ref-to-host binding, and variant disambiguation. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning on top: 'every word must match' specifies AND-matching that the schema's 'Words in the game's name' does not, and 'optionally in one system' clarifies the system parameter's filtering role.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Find games in each MiSTer's Zaparoo library by name' — and pins down matching semantics ('every word must match') plus the optional system scope. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_systems or list_nfc.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of 'a ref for launch' hints at the search-then-launch workflow, but no alternative tool is named and no when-not condition is given. An agent must infer that this is the discovery step before launch.

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