MiSTerClaw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the behavioral consequence (applying configuration changes) and the prerequisite action (mister_cfg_write). However, it omits whether the reload is disruptive to gameplay, atomic, or what constitutes failure/success.

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 sentences with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action, second sentence provides essential workflow context. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of structured schema data.

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's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the action and sequencing. However, it lacks mention of error conditions, return behavior, or side effects (e.g., screen flicker, input interruption during reload).

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?

Input schema contains 0 parameters (empty object). Per evaluation rules, 0 parameters establishes a baseline of 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and focuses on operational context instead.

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 a specific verb ('Reload') with a specific resource ('current core') and domain ('MiSTer-FPGA'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like mister_launch (which likely loads new cores) and mister_cfg_write (which changes settings without applying them).

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?

Excellent explicit guidance: 'Use after changing settings with mister_cfg_write to apply changes.' This establishes a clear workflow (write → reload), references the specific sibling tool by name, and explains exactly when this tool is needed versus when to use the writer.

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