pine_get_status

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'No side effects', details the underlying opcode (0x0F) and decoding of the 32-bit response, and mentions error conditions ('Errors on connection failure or PINE FAIL'). This fully discloses behavior.

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 with clear section headers (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS). Every sentence earns its place; no fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most important information.

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 simple status-check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidance, behavioral details, error handling, and return format. No gaps remain for the agent.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning beyond the empty schema. It adds value by explaining the return states and how they map to numeric values, which is useful context. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the emulator run state — 'running', 'paused', 'shutdown', or 'unknown''. It also distinguishes from sibling pine_get_info which batches Status with metadata, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does uniquely.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Cheap (1 PINE round-trip) check before timing-sensitive sequences — writes work while paused but only take visible effect after unpause.' It also specifies when to use an alternative: 'For game metadata (title, serial, CRC) use pine_get_info.' This helps the agent choose correctly.

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