retroarch_get_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully shoulders the transparency burden. It states 'No side effects — pure read of emulator status via the NCI's GET_STATUS command', explains the contentless case ('Returns 'No content loaded' (state=contentless) when RetroArch is sitting at the menu with no ROM'), and discloses error behavior on UDP timeout. This goes beyond what structured fields could convey.

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 organized with clear labels (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS) and every sentence contributes essential information. Despite its length, there is no redundancy or filler; it remains succinct while covering all necessary facets. The front-loaded purpose lets an agent quickly classify the tool.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by fully specifying the return format for both loaded and contentless states, including line-by-line details. It covers prerequisites (call after ping), side effects, and error cases, making it essentially self-contained for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 the schema provides no semantics to enrich. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds value by detailing the return payload, which is more relevant than parameter documentation for this no-arg tool.

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 clear, specific verb ('Report') and resource ('whether RetroArch is currently playing or paused, plus the loaded system, game basename, and CRC32'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like retroarch_get_config by stating what this tool does not do ('this tool only reports run-state and the loaded ROM identity'), making it easy for an agent to select it correctly.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call after retroarch_ping to learn what (if anything) is loaded; before retroarch_pause_toggle to decide whether the toggle will pause or unpause; before retroarch_frame_advance (which only steps when paused); whenever you need to confirm the previous fire-and-forget control command...'. It also names an alternative for a different use case: 'For RetroArch settings (paths, flags) use retroarch_get_config instead'. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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