get_ioports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Boot a machine briefly' conveys a temporary side effect, and 'list' suggests a read-only operation. However, it does not discuss potential side effects like log creation, system resource usage, or whether it requires a ROM set or existing MAME session.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Boot a machine briefly') followed by the purpose ('list MAME Lua IO-port fields'). It contains no wasted words and is appropriately sized for the tool's function.

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 tool has 7 parameters (all with defaults and schema descriptions) and no output schema. The description clearly states the output is a listing of IO-port fields, which is a simple concept. However, it lacks details on the output format or how the listing is presented, and does not mention whether it interacts with session tools. Given the moderate complexity and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is mostly complete but leaves some operational context unaddressed.

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%, so all 7 parameters are documented with descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Boot a machine briefly and list MAME Lua IO-port fields for input injection.' It uses a specific verb ('boot', 'list') and resource ('MAME Lua IO-port fields'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mame_send_input and mame_exec_lua_live by focusing on enumeration of IO ports.

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 phrase 'for input injection' implies the tool is a precursor to input-related operations, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites stated. The usage context is only implied, not spelled out.

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