MiSTerClaw

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully reveals critical behaviors: automatic backup before writing (safety), and deferred application requiring reload (latency). Only minor gap is absence of error handling or invalid option behavior description.

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?

Every sentence serves distinct purpose: action definition, safety disclosure, prerequisite workflow, concrete example, and post-action requirement. No redundant words. Front-loaded with the essential verb-object pattern.

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 2-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, description adequately covers the MiSTer-specific workflow (read→write→reload) and persistence behavior. Missing output description is partially mitigated by clear next-step instruction.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, description adds concrete contextual examples ('Free Play', 'On') and clarifies these are core options discoverable via cfg_read. This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Option name' and 'Value name' descriptions.

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?

Description specifies exact action ('Set a core option'), target resource ('CFG file'), and mechanism ('by name and value'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling mister_cfg_read by explicitly stating this is for writing values, not reading them.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Use cfg_read first' establishes prerequisites, 'After writing, use mister_reload to apply changes' defines post-action requirements. Names specific siblings at each step, preventing incorrect usage assumptions.

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