get_emulator_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the underlying protocol (ZRCP) and maps options to commands, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, potential side effects, failure modes, or response format. This is minimal transparency.

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 a single sentence with a compact list mapping, which is concise and front-loaded. It avoids wasted words, though a bulleted list could improve readability.

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 and simple enumeration, the description covers the parameter adequately. However, it omits any return format or example, leaving the agent uncertain about the response structure. For a low-complexity tool, this is acceptable but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly mapping each enum value to its corresponding ZRCP command, but the schema already explains the enum meaning. The added mapping is useful but not critical.

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 'Get emulator information via ZRCP' and provides a mapping of each enum value to a specific ZRCP command (e.g., version→get-version). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_registers or get_screen by focusing on emulator system properties.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for related queries, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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