retroarch_frame_advance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the command is silently ignored when not paused, is fire-and-forget with no acknowledgment, UDP packets are silently dropped if not listening, the frame count is not reported, and the return string is only a send confirmation. This fully reveals critical behavioral traits beyond basic functionality.

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?

Though lengthy, the description is structured with labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, FIRE-AND-FORGET, Transport, RETURNS). Each sentence conveys a necessary operational detail such as pause requirement, no-ack behavior, verification methods, and configuration. The length is justified by the tool's complexity, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, behavior, return value, transport, prerequisites, and verification strategies, even referencing sibling tools for confirmation. Given the fire-and-forget nature, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is fully complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and verify its effect.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to clarify. The description instead provides useful invocation context (UDP transport, network_cmd_enable requirement), which adds value, but the parameter dimension is vacuously satisfied. Baseline 4 for no params 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 opens with a precise purpose: "Step emulation forward by exactly one frame." It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing frame-precise stepping and even contrasts with long jumps using save/load states. This is a specific verb+resource+outcome with strong sibling differentiation.

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?

Explicit usage contexts are given: "frame-precise input automation, animation inspection, or letting the system initialize after a reset." It states the condition "ONLY effective while emulation is paused," instructs to call retroarch_pause_toggle first after checking retroarch_get_status, and recommends alternatives for long jumps. This is exemplary when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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