retroarch_pause_toggle

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

Despite no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: it is fire-and-forget with no UDP acknowledgment, packets can be silently dropped, and it requires network_cmd_enable in config. It also explains that the return line only confirms the UDP datagram was sent, not that RetroArch acted on it.

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?

Description is well-organized with labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. While it is lengthy, every sentence serves a purpose; minor verbosity is acceptable given the need to explain fire-and-forget semantics and usage patterns.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, correct usage sequence, behavioral limitations, transport requirements, and return value meaning. It is fully self-contained and leaves no ambiguity for an AI 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?

No parameters exist, so description adds no parameter-specific info. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and description fulfills that without needing to elaborate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Toggle RetroArch's pause state — pause if running, unpause if paused.', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like retroarch_get_status and retroarch_frame_advance by explaining when to use them in conjunction.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use retroarch_get_status first to check current state before toggling, and explains that calling toggle when state is unknown will flip it to the opposite state. Also recommends pairing with retroarch_frame_advance and defines fire-and-forget nature.

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