tape_control

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that transport actions (play/stop/rewind/forward) are not available over ZRCP and only 'insert' is supported. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., real tape device) or what happens after insertion or return behavior. This is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second provides limitations and alternatives. Very concise, front-loaded, and no wasted words.

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 (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the main action, limitations, and sibling relationship. It does not explain return values or prerequisites, but these are minor gaps. Overall sufficiently complete for effective use.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the ZRCP context, reinforcing that only 'insert' is supported, and providing a sibling recommendation. While schema already covers parameters, the description enriches understanding.

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 'Insert a real tape into the emulator' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'load_file' by noting that for ordinary files, prefer load_file. Also mentions the limitation on transport actions, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 says when to use this tool (for real tape insertion) and when not (for .tap/.tzx, prefer load_file). Also warns that only 'insert' is supported over ZRCP, providing clear context and alternatives.

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