MiSTerClaw

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full disclosure burden and succeeds in explaining return content: 'parsed CONF_STR menu items including options, triggers, file loaders, and sub-pages.' This compensates for missing output schema by detailing data structure and content types.

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?

Three precisely structured sentences: action definition, return format disclosure, and usage context. Front-loaded with core purpose, zero redundancy, appropriate information density for tool complexity.

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 single-parameter read tool without output schema, description adequately covers domain concepts (CONF_STR, cores, sub-pages). Could mention idempotency or caching behavior, but 'Get' implies safe read 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?

Schema has 100% description coverage ('Core name to look up... If omitted, uses currently loaded core'), so description need not elaborate heavily. It reinforces the optional nature ('currently loaded core or a specified core') but adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

Excellent specification: 'Get the OSD (On-Screen Display) menu structure' provides specific verb (Get), resource (OSD menu structure), and scope (currently loaded or specified core). Expands the OSD acronym and distinguishes from siblings like mister_osd_navigate (navigation vs. structure retrieval).

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?

States 'Useful for understanding what settings a core supports and what the OSD menu looks like,' giving clear usage context. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or contrast with mister_info/mister_system_info alternatives, but the specific scope makes selection clear.

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