bizhawk_list_memory_domains

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

Despite having no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: no side effects (pure read), and mentions the rare error case when the core doesn't implement memory.getmemorydomainlist. This provides complete transparency for a read-only query.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured with labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS). Every sentence adds value, and the information is 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?

The description is complete for a zero-parameter tool with no output schema. It explains the return format (newline-formatted list) and error conditions, leaving 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 tool has 0 parameters, so according to guidelines the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter meaning; it confirms no parameters are required.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: listing memory domains available on the loaded core. It provides concrete examples for SNES and NES, making it clear what the tool does and how it relates to sibling memory read/write tools.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use the tool: 'Call before any memory r/w tool when you don't know the domain layout.' It also specifies that the returned names are exactly what to pass as the `domain` parameter (case-sensitive), eliminating ambiguity.

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