Skip frames

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so mutation is established. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: polling can overshoot the requested count, long waits may fast-forward, and the operation can fail on timeout. It does not explain the destructiveness of lost prior state, which is the one gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and outcome, then the two caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return burden by naming the PNG screenshot and the actual frame count. It also covers overshoot and timeout failure. The only omission is any precondition about the emulator needing a loaded ROM, which is left to sibling context.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is self-documented, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by clarifying that count is a minimum rather than an exact advance ('at least the requested number', 'can overshoot'), which is genuine semantics the schema does not convey.

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 states a specific verb and resource (advance core frames until a target is met, then pause) and names its return artifact (PNG screenshot plus actual frame count). This distinguishes it from the read-only sibling get_current_screen, which only captures the current view without advancing state.

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?

Usage is implied — advance frames when you need the emulator to progress — but no alternative is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., 'use get_current_screen if you do not want to advance state'). The behavioral notes hint at appropriate conditions but do not route the agent between siblings.

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