retroarch_load_state_slot

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It explicitly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE TO LIVE STATE: replaces ALL current emulator state with the named slot's contents', notes ROM/core version requirements, explains that LOAD_STATE_SLOT sends a reply unlike siblings, and clarifies no-op behavior and pointer invariants. This is thorough and goes far beyond basic info.

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 longer than average, but its labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS) make it scannable and every sentence carries meaningful information. The detail is justified by the destructive nature and the need to separate from siblings. It is concise relative to the complexity.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a high-risk destructive operation, the description covers all needed context: purpose, usage alternatives, behavioral side effects, transport details, timeout behavior, verification advice, and return format. Nothing material is missing for an AI agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100% and already provides rich detail: integer, min 0, slot range 0-9, no hard upper bound, no-op outside range, and no pointer change. The description adds one useful nuance—this tool addresses by number and ignores current-slot pointer entirely—but it mostly reinforces schema content. Baseline 3 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 starts with a clear PURPOSE: 'Load state from an explicitly-named save slot number, without modifying RetroArch's currently-selected slot pointer.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling retroarch_load_state_current. The scope and uniqueness are fully clarified.

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?

The USAGE section explicitly states when to use this tool ('use to load from a specific slot when you don't want to disturb the current-slot pointer') and when not to ('For loading from the currently-selected slot, use retroarch_load_state_current'). It also notes the absence of a save counterpart and suggests the alternative state_slot_plus/minus walking approach. This is exemplary guidance.

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