Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_current_screenA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds 'without changing emulator state,' indicating a non-mutating operation, and specifies the output format. However, it does not clarify whether the PNG is returned directly in the response or saved to a location, which would be more complete.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence of 15 words, directly front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning (current, emulator, frame, PNG, without changing state), with no filler or redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete. It clearly conveys the core function and a key guarantee (no state change). However, it could be more explicit about the return mechanism (e.g., 'returns a PNG image'), which is relevant given the absence of an output schema.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the schema is fully covered by an empty properties object. The description appropriately focuses on the action rather than parameters.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool captures the current emulator frame as a PNG image, using the specific verb 'Captures' and identifying both the resource ('current emulator frame') and the output format ('PNG image'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like load_rom or reset_emulator, which handle different concerns.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context (obtaining a screenshot of the current emulator state) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned, so the agent must infer from the tool's name and siblings.

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

• list_romsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (--roms-dir) and implies a non-destructive read operation via 'Lists'. However, it does not explicitly state there are no side effects or that it is read-only, though this is strongly implied. Adequate but minimal.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action and source, and the second provides a direct usage pointer. Highly concise and well-structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential info: what it lists, where from, and how to use the result. It could explicitly mention the output format (e.g., list of objects with a 'name' field), but this is implied by 'Use the returned "name"'. Sufficiently complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic context by explaining that the returned 'name' feeds into load_rom, which clarifies the purpose of the tool's output and indirectly helps with the sibling's parameter.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Lists') and the resource ('ROM files') with a specific source ('--roms-dir'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by linking its output to load_rom, making its role unambiguous.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The second sentence provides explicit usage context: the returned 'name' should be used with load_rom. This indicates when to use the tool (before loading a ROM). There are no alternatives to exclude, so this is clear and sufficient.

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

• reset_emulatorA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the hard-reset behavior and the return value ('fresh screenshot'). However, it doesn't mention potential loss of unsaved progress or other side effects, which are important for a reset action.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word is useful. It's concise without being vague.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what happens and what the return value is, which is sufficient for the agent to use it correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain them. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since there's nothing to document.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Hard-resets the currently loaded game' with a useful analogy to a console reset button. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it's distinct from sibling tools like load_rom or control_emulator.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies the tool is used when you want to reset the game, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There's no mention of alternative tools or exclusions, so it relies on the reader's interpretation.

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

• control_emulatorA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the critical behavior that the emulator only runs briefly to register input and then pauses, which prevents unattended execution. It also explains how state='down'/'up' works for holding inputs.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds a crucial usage pattern. No wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple input tool with no output schema, this description covers the action, the behavior of the emulator, and how to combine with skip_frames. It doesn't mention return values, but they are likely trivial. The only minor gap is not stating any prerequisites (e.g., ROM loaded) but siblings imply context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema descriptions already cover each parameter, and the description adds value by illustrating the practical use of state for holding directions. This enriches the meaning of state beyond the basic enum description.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('presses or releases') and identifies the resource ('controller button'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_current_screen and skip_frames by focusing on input control.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explains the emulator's resume-pause behavior and gives explicit guidance for holding a direction across skip_frames() calls. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context makes it the obvious choice for button input.

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

• skip_framesA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses frame-accurate vs wall-clock, pausing, returning a screenshot, and the fast-forward threshold above ~180 frames. It stops short of describing all possible side effects, but is adequate for a simple operation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Three concise sentences, all carrying essential information. No redundancy or filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, it explains purpose, return value, and performance behavior. It does not cover error conditions or boundary edge cases, but those are not critical for the core use case.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds 'core-internal frames (frame-accurate, not wall-clock),' clarifying count meaning beyond the schema. The fast-forward threshold also provides practical context for choosing a count.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool advances the emulator by exactly N core-internal frames, a specific verb+resource with unique scope. It also notes that it returns a screenshot, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_current_screen.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly suggests 'Use this to let held inputs or animations play out,' giving concrete use cases. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for tool selection.

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

• load_romA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the game starts paused, returns the first screenshot after boot, and may be slow on first core download. These behavioral traits go beyond a simple 'loads a ROM' statement, though it does not mention failure modes or side effects.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then efficiently covers the two input modes and the return behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description covers the input options, the resulting state (paused), the return value (screenshot), and a timing caveat (core download). It provides an agent with enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, but the description adds crucial semantics: the mutually exclusive use of name vs. romBase64+fileName, and the requirement for fileName to have a real extension for system detection. This enriches the bare schema definitions.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Loads a ROM into the emulator and starts the game, paused.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_roms by referencing it and focusing on the loading action, making the purpose unambiguous.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit usage guidance: use 'name' from list_roms for library ROMs, or romBase64+fileName for external ROMs. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like reset_emulator or control_emulator, but the pairing with list_roms gives sufficient context for when to invoke load_rom.

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