mister_systems

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states it lists systems with ROM counts and storage locations, which is transparent about the read-only nature. It could improve by noting any limitations or performance characteristics, but it's adequate for a simple list tool.

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 no wasted words. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second provides usage context. Very concise and front-loaded.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's purpose and output. It tells the agent when to use it (before searching/launching) and what information it provides (ROM counts, storage locations). No gaps.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds value by specifying what the tool returns (ROM counts, storage locations) beyond the empty schema. This is excellent for parameter semantics.

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 'List all available systems (consoles/computers) on MiSTer-FPGA with their ROM counts and storage locations.' It uses specific verb (list), resource (systems on MiSTer-FPGA), and distinguishes from siblings like mister_search and mister_launch.

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?

The description includes 'Use this to discover what platforms are available before searching or launching games,' which explicitly tells when to use this tool. It does not state when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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