ppsspp_get_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavior: 'No side effects — pure read' and 'Returns 'no game loaded' fields if PPSSPP is at the home menu / not currently emulating.' This completely informs the agent of safety and outcomes.

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 structured with 'PURPOSE:', 'USAGE:', 'BEHAVIOR:', 'RETURNS:' sections, making it easy to scan. It is concise with no wasted words, and the most critical information comes first.

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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description completely covers purpose, usage, behavior, and return format. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or when to use it.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description adds value by explaining the return format and field names (Title, Disc ID, Version, run state). With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 applies, but the extra detail on return fields justifies a 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 loaded game's title, disc ID, and version, plus PPSSPP's run state.' It uses specific verbs and resource names, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ppsspp_get_registers by focusing on game metadata and emulation state.

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 explicitly advises to 'Call after ppsspp_ping to learn what game is loaded and whether emulation is currently running or stepping.' This provides clear context and sequencing relative to a sibling tool, and mentions the edge case of 'no game loaded' at the home menu.

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