mame_launch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the MAME process is persistent and lives across tool calls, which is critical stateful behavior. It also mentions headless + bridge mode, adding useful context. It doesn't detail cleanup or failure modes, but for a launch tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 long, immediately states the core purpose, and then the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted text. It is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 schema descriptions, and no output schema. The description explains the essential context: persistence, headless/bridge mode, and that it must precede other live tools. It doesn't describe the return value or how to interact with the session afterward, but given the schema coverage and the tool's role as a setup action, the description is adequately 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented with its default and purpose. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable because the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline of 3 applies.

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: launching a persistent live MAME session with a headless bridge. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by positioning it as a required prerequisite for other mame_* live tools, which is a specific and actionable purpose.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Required before any other mame_* live tool.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and implies that sibling mame_* live tools should not be invoked before it, effectively excluding alternatives. It is concise and unambiguous.

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