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 partially satisfies this by disclosing the data source ('parsed from conf_str') and detailing what structures are returned. However, it omits safety characteristics (read-only status), performance implications, or prerequisites (e.g., whether the system must be running).

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 efficient sentences with clear structure: first defines functionality and data contents, second provides usage context. The mention of 'conf_str' adds specific behavioral transparency without excessive verbosity. Front-loaded with the action verb.

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 no output schema exists, the description appropriately compensates by detailing the three major components of the return data (config, keyboard mapping, OSD structure). For a single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and read-only behavior, this provides sufficient context for invocation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameter 'system' is fully documented in the schema itself. The description implies the parameter by referencing 'system information' but adds no semantic details beyond the schema's type and examples.

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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed system information'), clearly listing what data is returned (core config, keyboard mapping, OSD menu structure). It implies the tool targets a specific system (matching the parameter), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'mister_info' or 'mister_systems'.

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 timing guidance ('before interacting') suggesting when to use it for capability discovery. However, it lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., 'use mister_systems to list available systems first') or exclusion criteria (when not to use this vs. mister_info).

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