mgba_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions running ROMs and capturing screenshots but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the ROM or savestate), rate limits, or error handling, leaving behavioral gaps for a tool with potential emulation complexities.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality with zero wasted words, making it easy to understand at a glance without unnecessary elaboration.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the basic action but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or deeper behavioral context. It's minimally adequate for a tool with 3 parameters but could be more informative about the screenshot output or execution nuances.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters like rom_path, frames, and savestate_path. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or usage context, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Run', 'capture') and resources ('GB/GBC/GBA ROM', 'screenshot'), and distinguishes it from siblings like memory reading or Lua execution tools by focusing on emulation execution with visual output.

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 implies usage for running ROMs and capturing screenshots, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mgba_run_lua or other siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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