pine_save_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses destructive behavior (silently overwrites target slot), environment constraints (bound to game disc and PCSX2 version), timing behavior (returns when save scheduled, not when on disk), and error conditions. This is comprehensive but could mention performance implications.

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 uses clear headings (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS) and is well-structured. However, it is somewhat verbose for a simple tool, with some redundancy and unnecessary detail about paths that could be streamlined.

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 includes return value format and error conditions. It covers the half-written window and dependencies. For a state-saving tool, it is sufficiently complete, though it lacks details about async execution or cancellation.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter (slot) with a detailed description including range, protocol, and path info. The description adds minimal additional semantic value beyond restating the slot-based nature. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Trigger the emulator to save complete state (RAM, registers, GPU, audio, timing) to a numbered slot.' It specifies the verb, resource, and distinguishes the tool from siblings like pine_load_state. The slot-based nature is explicitly highlighted.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Rollback point before risky writes, bookmarks, repro sharing' and mentions the companion tool pine_load_state. It gives clear context but does not fully list when not to use it beyond implying alternatives.

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