MiSTerClaw

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses filtering behavior ('items hidden by H/h flags are filtered out') and state dependency ('based on the current CFG state'), but does not mention read-only nature or error conditions.

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 efficiently constructed sentences with zero waste. First sentence establishes purpose and scope; second sentence provides behavioral context (H/h flags), filtering logic, and explicit sibling differentiation. Information is front-loaded.

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 with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value concept ('what the user would see on screen') and clarifies the visible vs. hidden distinction. Minor gap: no mention of return format or error cases.

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 description coverage is 100% ('Core name. If omitted, uses the currently loaded core'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description mentions 'current core' which aligns with the parameter, but adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema definition.

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 uses specific verb 'Get' with resource 'visible OSD menu items' and scope 'for the current core, based on the current CFG state'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool mister_osd_info by name in the usage guidance.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this instead of osd_info when you want to know what options are actually available right now', providing clear when-to-use versus alternative guidance with specific sibling reference.

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