load_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions loading a state and returning a screenshot, but lacks details on behavioral traits: e.g., whether this overwrites current state, requires specific emulator conditions, has side effects like pausing the game, or handles errors (e.g., invalid slot). For a mutation-like tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose and output, followed by a concise 'Args' section for parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete: it covers the tool's purpose, parameter meaning, and output. However, as a state-loading tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention potential side effects or prerequisites (e.g., requires a saved state to exist), slightly reducing completeness for this context.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains that 'slot' is a 'Save slot number (1-9)', which clarifies the parameter's purpose and valid range (1-9). The schema only indicates it's an integer with default 1, so the description compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage. However, it doesn't detail what happens if slot is out of range or already empty.

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 action ('Load an emulator state') and the resource ('from a slot'), and specifies the output ('return a screenshot'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'save_state' (opposite operation) and 'get_screenshot' (just screenshot without loading). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_game_state' or 'get_battle_state', which might retrieve similar information without loading a save.

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 needing to load a saved emulator state and get a visual confirmation via screenshot. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_game_state' (which might retrieve state without loading) or 'save_state' (for saving instead). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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