MiSTerClaw

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: fuzzy-matching algorithm, relevance ranking, and specific return fields (name, path, system, storage location). Missing only minor details like error behavior when no matches 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?

Four sentences, each serving distinct purpose: operation definition, return value specification, parameter usage hint, and matching algorithm disclosure. Perfectly front-loaded with no redundancy.

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?

Compensates well for missing output schema by enumerating return fields. With complete input schema (100% coverage) and clear behavioral description, the tool definition is sufficiently complete for invocation despite having no annotations.

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%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds concrete query examples ('zelda', 'street fighter') and clarifies that 'system' filters by 'platform', adding semantic value beyond the schema's mechanical descriptions.

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?

Specific verb 'Search' with clear resource 'MiSTer-FPGA ROM library' and scope 'by name'. Distinct from sibling mister_launch (execution) and mister_systems (platform listing) by focusing on ROM content 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?

Provides implied usage guidance by describing the 'system' parameter for platform filtering and noting fuzzy-matching behavior. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus mister_launch or mister_systems, and no 'when-not' caveats are provided.

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