MiSTerClaw

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It adequately lists returned data fields but omits operational details such as whether data is cached vs real-time, any permission requirements, or computational cost of gathering disk usage stats.

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 well-constructed sentences with zero waste. First sentence enumerates specific data fields, second provides use-case context. Appropriately front-loaded with concrete details.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description appropriately compensates by listing specific return fields (hostname, IP, etc.). Adequate for a read-only information retrieval operation.

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?

Baseline score for zero-parameter tool. Input schema is empty (trivially 100% coverage), requiring no additional parameter documentation in the description.

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?

Clear verb ('Get') and resource ('MiSTer-FPGA system information') with specific enumeration of returned data points (hostname, IP, CPU temperature, etc.). However, it does not distinguish from sibling 'mister_system_info' which likely overlaps in functionality.

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 implied usage context ('Useful for monitoring device health') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'mister_system_info' or other siblings, and does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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