dolphin_set_wiimote_pointer

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: it declares the tool 'DESTRUCTIVE to pointer state,' explains coordinate normalization and typical range, and mentions ClearOn::NextFrame semantics for holding positions across frames. This provides rich behavioral insight.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS), making it easy for an agent to parse. It's concise enough to be informative without unnecessary words.

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, the description provides a return string example. It covers input parameters, usage context, and behavioral traits. It could mention error handling or prerequisites (e.g., Dolphin must be running), but overall is sufficiently complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters documented), but the description adds value by explaining that coordinates are normalised floats, typical range, and that port defaults to 0. It also clarifies the need to call repeatedly to hold position, which is beyond schema detail.

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 begins with 'PURPOSE: Set the Wii Remote's IR pointer position on the given port,' which clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dolphin_set_wiimote_acceleration by focusing on pointer position and provides example game titles for context.

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 USAGE section explicitly lists use cases (menu navigation in Wii titles) and suggests combining with dolphin_press_wiimote_buttons for click-and-aim sequences. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the sibling tools are differentiated by their functions.

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