coco_start

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

No annotations, so description carries the full burden. It does disclose key behavior: it 'waits until the Lua bridge answers ping,' implying it blocks and confirms readiness. However, it's silent on failure modes (timeout, port conflicts), whether it's idempotent, and what state it leaves behind.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, then the readiness condition. No waste.

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 zero-parameter, no-annotation startup tool, the description covers the core action and readiness wait. But it omits critical context: what happens if spawning fails, whether it must be called before sibling tools, and whether the bridge readiness is a precondition for subsequent commands.

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, so baseline 4 per rubric. No parameter semantics to describe, and the description correctly does not invent any.

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+resource+environment: 'Spawn local official MAME coco3 with the disk controller.' Specific enough to know exactly what it launches. No explicit sibling differentiation (e.g., vs. coco_stop or coco_soft_reset), but the action is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies you call this to start the emulator but doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., must be called before other coco_* tools) or whether it's a one-time setup versus repeatable.

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