Plans or executes an evidence-driven N64-to-PS2 pipeline, running only installed adapters and recording blocked stages instead of simulating results.
Plan or execute the evidence-driven N64-to-PS2 pipeline. It runs only installed adapters and records blocked stages instead of simulating results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | ||
| confirm | No | Required for execute mode | |
| refresh | No | ||
| romPath | Yes | ||
| configPath | No | ||
| projectRoot | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does deliver real behavioral facts: only installed adapters run, and blocked stages are recorded rather than simulated. It still omits whether execute mode writes or mutates the project, what artifacts are produced, and whether the run is idempotent or long-running.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key behavioral constraint; no padding or redundancy.
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 six-parameter, two-required-parameter orchestration tool with no annotations, no output schema, and near-zero schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It never names the pipeline stages, the required inputs' purpose, or what a caller receives back.
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 only 17% — just the confirm flag — so the description needed to explain romPath, projectRoot, configPath, and refresh, and it explains none of them. The one useful hint (blocked stages) relates to behavior, not to any parameter's meaning or format.
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 gives a specific pair of verbs (plan/execute) tied to a named resource (the N64-to-PS2 pipeline), so the agent knows the general operation. It does not distinguish this pipeline runner from close siblings such as port_project_plan, port_start, or project_intake, which is the main clarity gap.
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 guidance on when to pick this tool over port_project_plan or port_start, and nothing in the prose explains when to choose plan versus execute mode (the enum exists only in the schema). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.