MiSTerClaw

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

With no annotations, the description discloses critical security context: 'Commands run as the MiSTer user with full system access.' It also mentions the tool returns output. Minor gap: does not specify blocking behavior, timeouts, or stderr handling that typically matter for shell execution.

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?

Three well-structured sentences with zero waste: purpose (sentence 1), usage guidelines (sentence 2), and security context (sentence 3). Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Complete for a single-parameter shell tool with no output schema. Security disclosure ('full system access') adequately warns of risks. Minor gap regarding execution model (sync/async, timeout) prevents a 5.

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 clear description and examples for the 'command' parameter. The description mentions 'file operations' and 'system administration' as use cases but does not add parameter syntax or validation rules beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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?

Description clearly states 'Execute a shell command on MiSTer-FPGA' with specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly positioning it as a fallback for tasks 'not covered by other tools'.

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 when to use: 'Use for file operations, system administration, or any task not covered by other tools.' This provides clear guidance that it is a catch-all utility when specialized sibling tools (like mister_cfg_read) are insufficient.

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