mister_launch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains the parameter constraints (path requires system) but does not describe side effects like whether the tool closes an existing game, if it requires a certain system state, or what happens on failure. The term 'launch' implies execution, but more detail would improve transparency.

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 and under 50 words. It front-loads the primary action 'Launch a game on MiSTer-FPGA' and immediately provides usage details. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential usage: it explains the purpose, the two ways to specify the game, and the optional filter. It does not describe return values or error handling, but for a launch tool, the core functionality is adequately explained.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds clarifying context: query is for fuzzy search, path is for exact path, and path requires system to be set. This extra rule is not explicitly stated in the schema, adding value beyond the schema alone.

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 launches a game on MiSTer-FPGA, using 'launch' as the action and specifying the target resource (game). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mister_info' or 'mister_reload' by focusing on launching a game, not configuration or system operations.

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 instructions on how to use the tool: use 'query' for fuzzy search or 'path' for direct ROM path, with optional 'system' filter. It also states that either 'query' or 'path' is required, but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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