retroarch_get_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool is a pure read with no side effects, describes the transport (NCI over UDP, with network_cmd_enable required), and lists potential errors (non-whitelisted param, parser breakage, timeout). This is very good, though missing details on empty values or error format.

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 clear headings (PURPOSE, USAGE, NOTE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS) and is front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, and it is not overly verbose.

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 (one parameter) and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and return format. It mentions error conditions and transport requirements. Minor omission: does not specify error return format, but overall very 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed description of the 'name' parameter, including common values and caveats. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, only repeating some info and adding the note about screenshot_directory not being exposed. Baseline of 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 the tool reads a single RetroArch config parameter via NCI's GET_CONFIG_PARAM command. It distinguishes from siblings like retroarch_get_status and retroarch_screenshot, specifying different use cases.

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 says when to use this tool (to discover paths/settings without parsing retroarch.cfg) and when not to (for run-state, use retroarch_get_status). It also notes the screenshot directory is not exposed, pointing to retroarch_screenshot.

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