MiSTerClaw

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully adds behavioral context by specifying exactly what data is returned (ROM counts and storage locations) beyond just 'listing systems.' The verb 'List' implies read-only behavior, though explicit safety confirmation (e.g., 'safe read operation') would strengthen this further.

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 well-structured sentences with zero waste. First sentence defines the operation and output payload; second sentence provides workflow context. Information is front-loaded and every clause 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?

For a parameter-less discovery tool without output schema, the description adequately compensates by describing the returned data structure (ROM counts, storage locations) and usage context. Minor gap: doesn't mention potential pagination or empty result handling, but this 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?

Input schema contains zero parameters. Per rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. The description correctly makes no reference to parameters that don't exist, avoiding confusion.

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 clearly states the specific action ('List all available systems'), the resource type ('consoles/computers on MiSTer-FPGA'), and distinctive output details ('ROM counts and storage locations'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like mister_system_info (likely single-system details) and mister_search (game-level queries).

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 this to discover what platforms are available before searching or launching games.' This clearly defines the discovery-phase workflow and explicitly references sibling operations (searching, launching) to establish proper sequencing.

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