MiSTerClaw

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Effectively explains side effects (Opens OSD/F12), implementation mechanism (conf_str-based position calculation), reliability constraints (experimental), and failure modes (incorrect positioning with runtime-hidden items). Could clarify what happens if target is not found.

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?

Logical progression: purpose → mechanism → scope → prerequisites → limitations. Every sentence earns its place. Parenthetical '(experimental...)' and 'Note:' efficiently flag critical caveats without breaking flow. Appropriate length for 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?

Comprehensive for a single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage. Covers purpose, mechanism, input semantics, prerequisites, and limitations. No output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Minor gap: does not specify error behavior when target is unmatched.

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 coverage is 100% with good description for 'target' parameter. Description adds valuable semantic context by enumerating example values and categories ('Reset, options, file mounts, triggers etc.') that help the agent understand valid inputs beyond the schema's generic 'Menu item name'.

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 'Navigate' with specific resource 'OSD menu item'. Explicitly scopes to 'by name' and mechanism 'using conf_str-based position calculation'. Distinguishes from sibling mister_osd_info (which gets info) and mister_osd_visible (which checks state) by focusing on the navigation action.

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 warnings about reliability ('experimental — not yet reliable for all cores'), prerequisites ('Uses the currently loaded core'), and limitations ('cores with runtime-hidden items may cause incorrect positioning'). Lists valid target categories ('Reset, options, file mounts, triggers'). Lacks explicit comparison to sibling alternatives.

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