MiSTerClaw

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It specifies what data is returned (core, ROM), implying a read operation, but doesn't explicitly state it's safe/read-only, describe error conditions (offline MiSTer), caching behavior, or response format structure.

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 waste. Front-loaded with the core function ('Get the current status...'), followed by usage guidance. Every word 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?

Appropriate for a simple state-query tool. Compensates for missing output schema by describing return payload contents (core, ROM). Lacking annotations or output schema, it could additionally specify the data format (JSON structure) or error states, but coverage is sufficient for tool selection.

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?

Zero parameters per input schema ({}). With 0 parameters, baseline score is 4 as per calibration rules. Description correctly implies no configuration is needed to retrieve current status.

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?

Clear verb 'Get' and specific resource 'status of MiSTer-FPGA' with explicit scope (core + ROM). Distinguishes implicitly from action-oriented siblings like mister_launch, but doesn't explicitly contrast with mister_info or mister_system_info which may return similar device data.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to check what's currently playing before launching something new.' This establishes the workflow timing (pre-launch check) and implicitly relates to mister_launch, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool.

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