mister_osd_navigate

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses experimental status, reliability concerns, method (conf_str-based position), core dependency, and runtime-hidden items caveat. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single paragraph of four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. It is reasonably concise, though some phrases like 'experimental (not yet reliable for all cores)' could be slightly tighter.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the core functionality, method, core dependency, and known limitations. It provides sufficient context for the agent to decide usage without needing additional details.

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 schema already describes the 'target' parameter, but the description adds value with concrete examples (e.g., 'Reset', 'FDD0', 'Aspect ratio') and usage context, which helps the agent understand acceptable values beyond the schema's generic 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?

The description clearly states the action 'Navigate to a specific OSD menu item by name' and specifies the resource (OSD menu item). It differentiates from sibling tools like mister_osd_info and mister_osd_visible by its specific 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?

The description provides context for usage (opens OSD, uses conf_str-based positioning, works for various items) and notes limitations (experimental, unreliable for some cores, hidden items cause issues). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide when-not conditions.

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