mgba_read_range

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic operation. It doesn't mention what happens when reading memory (does it require emulation to be running?), what format the output takes, whether there are limitations on address ranges, or what happens with invalid addresses. For a memory read operation with 5 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core function. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration - every word serves the purpose of explaining what the tool does.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (raw bytes? formatted data?), how errors are handled, or the relationship between parameters like 'savestate_path' and 'frames' with the memory reading operation. The context demands more complete information.

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 has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 the action ('Read') and resource ('contiguous range of memory addresses'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'mgba_read_memory' - both appear to read memory, so the specific distinction isn't explained.

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 description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'mgba_read_memory' and 'mgba_dump_entities' available, there's no indication of what makes this tool the appropriate choice for reading a contiguous range versus other memory access methods.

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