mame_drive_to_gameplay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the internal steps: waits for $0818 idle, injects clean coin/start edges, confirms GAME_TICK, and explains the C-Chip handshake non-reproducibility. This is substantial behavioral detail, but it lacks return value and error handling information.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful detail. There is no wasted wording.

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 description thoroughly explains the tool's behavior, process, and rationale, especially given the lack of an output schema. However, it omits return values and failure modes, which are relevant for an action tool, making it not fully complete.

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 schema has zero parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It mentions coin and start conceptually ('inject clean coin/start EDGES'), and credits is implied by name. However, it doesn't specify valid values or what 'clean edges' means in terms of parameter syntax, leaving some ambiguity.

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-AWARE drive to a running game' with a specific sequence (wait for idle, inject coin/start, confirm GAME_TICK). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like mame_launch (starting) or mame_send_input (raw input).

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?

It provides clear context for when to use: to reach gameplay after boot, and specifically mentions it is 'Replay-robust where a fixed-frame .inp desyncs'. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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