Commodore 64 Ultimate Computer MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is notable overlap in file handling (e.g., load_prg_file vs. run_prg_file) and disk image creation (create_d64, create_d71, etc.), which could cause confusion. The descriptions help clarify, but the high tool count increases ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun structures (e.g., capture_screen, list_drives). Minor deviations exist, such as modplay_file vs. sidplay_file (inconsistent prefix usage), but overall naming is predictable and readable.
Tool Count2/5
With 49 tools, the count is excessive for a single server, making it feel heavy and overwhelming. While the domain (Commodore 64 emulation/control) is broad, many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple create_d* for disk images) to improve usability.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for the domain, including configuration management, disk operations, file loading/execution, machine control, and debugging. There are no obvious gaps; it supports full CRUD/lifecycle operations for emulating and controlling a Commodore 64 system.
Average 3/5 across 49 of 49 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Reset' implies a mutation that may alter drive state, but it doesn't specify if this is destructive (e.g., clears data), requires specific permissions, has side effects on mounted disks, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves critical behavioral traits unclear for a mutation tool.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Reset a specific drive' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a reset operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'reset' does behaviorally, what to expect as a result, or any error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'drive' documented as a drive identifier (e.g., 'a', 'b'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as valid drive ranges or examples, but the schema adequately covers the parameter semantics, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Reset a specific drive' clearly states the action (reset) and target (drive), but it's vague about what 'reset' entails—whether it's a soft reset, hard reset, or clearing data. It distinguishes from siblings like 'drive_remove' or 'machine_reset' by focusing on drives, but lacks specificity on the reset type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'drive_remove', 'machine_reset', or 'reset_config_to_default'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether the drive must be on or mounted, or any exclusions for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'Set' (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are immediate/persistent, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool without annotation support.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Set multiple configuration items at once'), making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools (including 'set_config_item'), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what configuration items are, how changes interact with other tools, or what happens on success/failure. More context is needed given the complexity and lack of structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema fully documenting the 'settings' parameter as an object with category.item keys and string values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying batch capability ('multiple...at once'), which aligns with the schema's object structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target ('multiple configuration items at once'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'set_config_item' (which appears to set single items), though the 'at once' phrasing implies batch capability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_config_item' for single updates, 'reset_config_to_default' for reverting, or 'save_config_to_flash' for persistence. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), error conditions, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a disk creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a D71 disk image is, how it differs from siblings, what happens after creation, or any behavioral traits. This leaves the agent with too many unknowns for a mutation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (path and diskname) adequately. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what a D71 disk image is or how parameters interact, but with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new D71 disk image'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like create_d64, create_d81, and create_dnp, which presumably create different disk image formats, so it misses the opportunity to clarify what distinguishes a D71 from other disk types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like create_d64 and create_d81, it's unclear what scenarios call for a D71 disk image specifically, and there's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or common use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool that creates files, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that creates disk images with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a D81 disk image is, what happens after creation, potential errors, or how this differs from similar creation tools. The context signals show this is a file creation operation that needs more behavioral context than provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, so both parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what's in the schema. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'new D81 disk image', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like create_d64 and create_d71 by specifying the D81 format, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them in the description text itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_d64 or create_d71, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool creates something, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error handling, or what happens if a file already exists at the path. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool creates a disk image (a write operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on success/failure responses, file format specifics, or how the created image interacts with other tools like mount_disk_file. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters (path, tracks, diskname). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new DNP disk image'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_d64, create_d71, and create_d81 by specifying the DNP format. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these similar tools, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_d64, create_d71, or create_d81, nor does it mention prerequisites or context for creating a DNP disk image. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool loads a ROM but doesn't mention whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., overwrites existing ROM), requires specific drive states, has side effects, or handles errors. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 mutation tool (loading ROMs likely changes drive state), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., success/failure indicators, side effects) or behavioral context, leaving gaps for the agent to operate safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('drive' as identifier and 'file' as path). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as file format details or drive constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Load') and target resource ('custom ROM for drive from filesystem'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'drive_load_rom_upload' by specifying the source as 'filesystem' rather than an upload. However, it could be more specific about what 'custom ROM' entails or the drive context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'drive_load_rom_upload' for uploading ROMs or other drive-related tools like 'drive_set_mode'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., drive must be on) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'upload and load' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it overwrites existing ROMs, potential side effects on drive state, error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose and key constraint (base64 encoding). It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., effects, errors), usage context, and output expectations. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the absence of structured data, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('drive' and 'data') fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by specifying 'base64 encoded' for the data parameter, but doesn't provide additional context like ROM format requirements or drive identifier constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('upload and load') and the resource ('custom ROM for drive'), specifying it must be base64 encoded. It distinguishes from sibling 'drive_load_rom_file' by indicating this tool handles uploaded data rather than files. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other upload tools like 'load_prg_upload' or 'run_prg_upload' in terms of ROM vs. program context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While the description implies usage for custom ROM loading, it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., drive must be on), exclusions (e.g., not for standard ROMs), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'drive_load_rom_file' for file-based loading or other upload tools for different data types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Disable a drive' implies a state change (likely from enabled to disabled), but it doesn't specify effects (e.g., does it unmount disks, affect emulation, or require permissions?), reversibility, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
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 'Disable a drive' is extremely concise—three words that directly convey the core action. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. For a simple tool with one parameter, this brevity is effective and appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, side effects, error handling, or return values, leaving gaps that could hinder correct usage. For a tool that likely changes system state, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'drive' documented as 'Drive identifier (e.g., 'a', 'b')'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, as it doesn't explain format constraints, valid identifiers, or examples. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the work, but the description doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Disable a drive' clearly states the action (disable) and target resource (a drive), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'drive_on' (enable) and 'drive_remove' (delete), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all drive-related tools like 'drive_set_mode' or 'drive_reset'. The description is specific but could be more precise about what 'disable' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., drive must exist or be mounted), exclusions (e.g., cannot disable while active), or compare to siblings like 'drive_on' for enabling or 'drive_remove' for deletion. Without this context, an agent might misuse it or overlook better options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Enable a drive' suggests a state-changing operation, but it doesn't specify effects (e.g., powers on drive, makes it accessible), permissions needed, side effects (e.g., interrupts other operations), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 extremely concise at three words ('Enable a drive'), front-loaded with the core action, and has zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the basic purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool (implied by 'Enable') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, effects, error handling, or return values, which are critical for safe and effective use. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient for a state-changing operation.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'drive' documented as 'Drive identifier (e.g., 'a', 'b')'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond this, but with only one parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline is strong. No additional semantics are needed, so a score of 4 reflects adequate coverage without redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Enable a drive' states a clear verb ('Enable') and resource ('a drive'), but it's vague about what 'enable' means in this context (e.g., power on, mount, activate). It distinguishes from sibling 'drive_off' by implying an opposite action, but doesn't specify how it differs from other drive-related tools like 'drive_set_mode' or 'drive_load_rom_file'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires a drive to exist), exclusions (e.g., not for already enabled drives), or when to choose siblings like 'drive_set_mode' for configuration instead. The context is implied from the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states the action is 'unmount' (implying a safe disconnection rather than destructive removal), but doesn't mention whether data persists, if the drive remains accessible afterward, or what happens to mounted files. More operational details would help the agent understand consequences.
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, efficient sentence that communicates the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential verb-noun combination, making it immediately scannable and understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that performs a drive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'unmount' entails operationally, what state the drive is left in, or what the agent should expect after invocation. More context about the action's effects would be needed for proper use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'drive' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Unmount') and resource ('disk image from drive'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'drive_off' or 'drive_reset', but the specific unmounting action is distinct enough from general drive operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention whether this should be used before removing physical media or how it differs from 'drive_off' (which might power down the drive). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or return format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'configuration items' entail, the return format, or behavioral traits like error handling. For a tool with rich sibling context and no structured support, it should provide more context to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'category' documented as 'Configuration category name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of categories or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all configuration items in a category'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_config_item' (which retrieves a single item) or 'list_config_categories' (which lists categories rather than items within one), missing full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_config_item' for single items or 'list_config_categories' for category lists, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, error conditions, or behavioral traits like idempotency. For a read tool with no structured output information, this leaves the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('category' and 'item'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('specific configuration item's details'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_config_category' by focusing on individual items rather than categories. However, it doesn't specify what 'details' include, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_config_category' or 'list_config_categories'. The description implies it's for retrieving specific items, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention permissions needed, error conditions, rate limits, or what specific metadata is returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple read operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what metadata is returned, error handling, or behavioral constraints. While concise, it lacks the completeness needed for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'path' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get metadata') and resource ('about a file on the device'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'list_drives' or 'read_memory', but the specificity of 'file metadata' provides reasonable differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'read_memory' or 'list_drives', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool loads a file 'without executing', which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether it requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, if it validates file format, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Load a program file') and adds clarifying detail ('from filesystem without executing'). Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'loading' entails (e.g., into memory, for inspection), what the return value might be, or error conditions. For a tool that likely interacts with system files, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'file' documented as 'Path to the PRG file on the device'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Load') and resource ('program file from filesystem'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'run_prg_file' by explicitly stating 'without executing', but doesn't fully differentiate from 'load_prg_upload' which likely loads from upload rather than filesystem.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_prg_file' or 'load_prg_upload'. It mentions 'without executing' which hints at a difference from execution tools, but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action ('Play') but doesn't explain what 'Play' entails—e.g., does it start audio playback, require specific device state, have side effects like interrupting other processes, or return any output? This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs an action like 'Play'. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., what happens during playback, error conditions, or device requirements) or output details, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'file' parameter clearly documented as 'Path to the MOD file on the device'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Play') and resource ('an Amiga MOD file from the device filesystem'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'modplay_upload' or 'sidplay_file', which handle similar media playback but from different sources or formats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'modplay_upload' (for uploaded files) or 'sidplay_file' (for SID files), leaving the agent to infer usage context based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'upload and play' but doesn't specify what happens during playback (e.g., audio output, duration, controls), whether it's destructive to system state, or any permissions/rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves media processing.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('upload and play') and resource ('Amiga MOD file'), with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and clear purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'play' entails (e.g., audio playback, visual feedback, error handling) or the return values, which is insufficient for a tool that likely produces media output or status updates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds that the MOD file must be 'base64 encoded', which provides context beyond the schema's 'Base64 encoded MOD file data' for the single parameter 'data'. With 100% schema description coverage, this extra detail is minimal but helpful, meeting the baseline for adequate parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'upload and play' and the resource 'an Amiga MOD file (base64 encoded)', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'modplay_file' or 'sidplay_upload', which appear to be related media playback tools, so it misses the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'modplay_file' and 'sidplay_upload' present, there's no indication of when this upload-based MOD playback is preferred over file-based methods or other media types, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as permissions needed, effects on system state, error handling, or what 'mount' entails (e.g., read/write access, persistence). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, side effects, return values, or error conditions, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context (e.g., valid disk types or modes). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Mount a disk image from filesystem' clearly states the action (mount) and resource (disk image from filesystem), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'mount_disk_upload' which handles uploaded images. However, it doesn't specify what 'mount' entails operationally (e.g., making it accessible to a system).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mount_disk_upload' or other disk-related tools (e.g., 'create_d64'). The description implies usage for filesystem-based images but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing disk), error handling, or what 'mount' entails operationally, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on success/failure outcomes, disk mounting behavior, and how it differs from siblings, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by hinting at 'base64 encoded' for 'data', but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or optional fields' effects, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('upload and mount') and resource ('a disk image'), specifying it must be base64 encoded. It distinguishes from sibling 'mount_disk_file' by indicating upload vs. file-based mounting, but doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mount_disk_file' or other disk creation tools (e.g., 'create_d64'). The description implies usage for uploading disk images, but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Read data') but doesn't describe what happens during execution—such as whether it requires the machine to be powered on, if it has side effects, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (memory read operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, potential errors, or dependencies (e.g., machine state). For a tool interacting with system memory, more context is needed to use it effectively, especially without structured output information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The schema fully documents 'address' as a hex string and 'length' with a default, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Read') and resource ('data from C64 memory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'write_memory' and 'write_memory_binary' by specifying a read operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other read-like tools (e.g., 'read_debug_register'), so it's not fully specific about its unique scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with sibling tools like 'read_debug_register' or 'get_file_info' that might also retrieve data. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action ('Start') but doesn't explain what this entails—whether it loads and executes the cartridge, affects machine state, requires specific conditions, or has side effects like resetting the system. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of running a cartridge file (likely involving machine state changes) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address what happens after starting, potential errors, or interactions with other tools, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'file' documented as 'Path to the CRT file on the device'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only mentions 'from filesystem' which is implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start') and resource ('a cartridge file from filesystem'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_crt_upload' which likely serves a similar function but from uploaded data rather than filesystem.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'run_crt_upload' or other cartridge/PRG-related tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a destructive operation (e.g., overwrites existing data), requires specific machine states, has side effects like resetting the system, or involves rate limits. The phrase 'start' hints at execution, but lacks clarity on outcomes or errors.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('upload and start') and key constraint ('base64 encoded'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 tool that performs an upload/start operation (implying mutation and execution), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'data' fully documented in the schema as 'Base64 encoded CRT file data'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating 'base64 encoded', so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps, but doesn't enhance understanding of the parameter's role or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('upload and start') and resource ('a cartridge file'), specifying it must be base64 encoded. It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_crt_file' (which likely uses a file path) and 'run_prg_upload' (which handles different file types), but doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_crt_file' or 'run_prg_upload'. The description implies usage for cartridge files, but lacks context on prerequisites, file formats, or scenarios where this is preferred over other upload or file-based tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool loads and executes a file, implying it's a mutation operation that could affect system state, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like potential side effects (e.g., program execution altering memory), permissions needed, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that executes code.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of executing a program file (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like what happens during execution (e.g., does it block until completion?), return values, error conditions, or safety considerations, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'file' documented as 'Path to the PRG file on the device'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as file format details or path constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Load and execute') and the resource ('a program file from filesystem'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'load_prg_file' or 'run_prg_upload', which handle similar PRG files but with different input methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., file must exist on device), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'run_prg_upload' (for uploaded files) or 'load_prg_file' (which might only load without execution).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It implies a write/execution operation but doesn't disclose effects (e.g., machine state changes, program execution impact), permissions needed, error conditions, or side effects like halting other processes. This is inadequate for a tool that likely alters system behavior.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste—each word ('upload, load and execute') contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (executing programs likely changes machine state), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, return values, or error handling, leaving critical gaps for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'data' documented as 'Base64 encoded PRG file data'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond this, such as format specifics or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('upload, load and execute') and resource ('a program file'), specifying it must be base64 encoded. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'load_prg_upload' (which only loads) and 'run_prg_file' (which uses a file instead of data), but could be more explicit about differences from tools like 'run_crt_upload' or 'modplay_upload'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., machine state), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'run_prg_file' (file-based) or 'load_prg_upload' (load-only), leaving the agent to infer usage from names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this requires special permissions, if changes are immediate or temporary, potential side effects, or error conditions (e.g., invalid categories). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., persistence, permissions), error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly in context with siblings like 'save_config_to_flash'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a singular item update, which is already evident from the schema's structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Set') and resource ('configuration item's value'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_config_item' by indicating a write operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'batch_set_config' or 'reset_config_to_default' beyond the singular vs. batch distinction implied by 'specific'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'batch_set_config' for multiple items, 'reset_config_to_default' for reverting, or 'save_config_to_flash' for persistence, leaving the agent to infer usage context from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Play' implies an action that might start audio playback, the description doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens if the file is invalid, or if playback can be stopped/interrupted. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information ('Play a SID file'), making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs an action like playback. It doesn't explain what 'Play' entails (e.g., audio output, duration, controls), potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. For a tool with behavioral implications, this leaves too much unspecified for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema itself (e.g., 'Path to the SID file on the device' for 'file'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool uses a file from the filesystem, which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Play') and resource ('a SID file from the device filesystem'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sidplay_upload' (which likely plays uploaded SID files), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'sidplay_upload' (for uploaded files) or 'modplay_file' (for MOD files), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing the file to exist on the device filesystem or the device being in a playable state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool uploads and plays a file, implying a mutation (upload) and action (play), but doesn't describe what 'play' entails—e.g., whether it starts playback immediately, requires specific hardware, or has side effects like interrupting other audio. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('upload and play') and includes essential constraint ('base64 encoded'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 tool that performs both upload and playback actions, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'play' means in this context (e.g., audio output, machine state changes), potential errors, or return values. For a tool with two parameters and implied mutation/action, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('data' as base64 encoded SID file, 'songnr' as optional song number). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning base64 encoding in the context of the overall action, but doesn't provide additional semantics like format details or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('upload and play') and resource ('a SID file'), making the purpose evident. It specifies that the file must be base64 encoded, which adds useful detail. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sidplay_file' or 'modplay_upload', which likely handle similar media playback with different input methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'sidplay_file' (which might play from a file path) or 'modplay_upload' (for other audio formats), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a running machine or loaded media. Usage context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action ('Start') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's a persistent operation, what happens if a stream is already running, or any rate limits. The mention of 'U64 only' adds some context about format restrictions, but key behavioral aspects are missing for a tool that initiates streams.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded in a single sentence, with zero wasted words. Every part ('Start a video/audio/debug stream (U64 only)') directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and constraints, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of starting a stream (which likely involves network and media handling), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, error conditions, stream persistence, or what the tool returns. The 'U64 only' note adds some context, but overall, it doesn't provide enough information for safe and effective use in a broader context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('stream' and 'ip') with their purposes. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the stream types ('video/audio/debug') and format constraint ('U64 only'), but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start') and resource ('a video/audio/debug stream'), with specificity about the format ('U64 only'). It distinguishes from sibling 'stream_stop' by indicating the opposite operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other streaming or media-related tools in the list, which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other streaming or media tools in the sibling list. It mentions 'U64 only' as a constraint but doesn't explain when this format is required or what alternatives exist for other formats. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action and U64 constraint. It lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if stopping affects other processes), error handling, or response behavior, which are critical for a mutation tool.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the key action and constraint. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses behavioral details like effects, error cases, and return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 the 'stream' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it's for U64 streams, but this doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema's details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop') and target ('an active stream'), with the specific constraint 'U64 only' indicating it applies only to U64 streams. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'stream_start' beyond the opposite action, missing explicit contrast in scope or conditions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. It mentions 'active stream' but doesn't specify how to check if a stream is active or what happens if none exists, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states 'Write' implying a mutation operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, side effects, or what 'debug register' entails (e.g., hardware-level access, persistence). This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies system state.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and includes a key constraint ('U64 only') directly, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool likely performs a low-level write operation (implied by 'debug register'), the description is insufficient. No annotations exist to cover safety or behavioral traits, and there's no output schema, leaving critical gaps in understanding effects, permissions, and return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'value' documented as 'Value to write to debug register'. The description adds the constraint 'U64 only', which clarifies the data type beyond the schema's 'integer', providing some extra semantic context. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Write') and resource ('debug register'), and specifies a constraint ('U64 only'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'write_memory' or 'set_config_item', which could involve similar write operations to different targets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., debugging scenarios), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'via DMA', which hints at direct memory access, but doesn't explain potential side effects (e.g., overwriting memory, system instability), permissions required, or error handling. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, side effects, or return values, and lacks differentiation from similar tools. Given the complexity of memory writing and the absence of structured safety hints, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between address and data or providing usage examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Write data') and target ('to C64 memory via DMA'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from its sibling 'write_memory_binary', which likely serves a similar purpose with different data format, leaving room for improvement in sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'write_memory_binary' or 'write_debug_register'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the machine needs to be in a specific state, or any constraints on memory access.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'via DMA' which hints at direct memory access, but fails to describe critical traits like whether this is a destructive write, potential side effects, permission requirements, or error conditions. For a tool that writes to memory, this lack of detail is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without any waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of writing to memory (a potentially destructive operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, return values, error handling, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It mentions 'base64 encoded' for the data parameter, but this is already covered in the schema description. No additional context or constraints are provided for parameters, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Write binary data') and target ('to C64 memory via DMA'), specifying the encoding requirement ('base64 encoded'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'write_memory' by mentioning DMA and binary data, though not explicitly contrasting them. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated from its sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'write_memory' or other memory-related tools. The description implies usage for binary data via DMA, but it doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states this creates a new disk image, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the path already exists. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the core purpose but lacks important context about behavioral characteristics, error handling, and output format. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall completeness is limited given the tool's mutation nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all three parameters. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it doesn't enhance parameter understanding. However, with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new D64 disk image'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like create_d71 and create_d81 by specifying the D64 format, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The description is specific but could be more explicit about sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_d71 or create_d81, nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. It simply states what the tool does without any usage context, leaving the agent to infer when this specific disk image type is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Change' implies a mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are immediate or require a reboot, what happens to mounted disks during the change, or what error conditions might occur. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
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 perfectly concise - a single sentence with zero wasted words that immediately communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the essential action and includes the specific mode options without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks critical context about behavioral implications, error handling, and system state changes. While the purpose is clear, the description doesn't adequately address what an agent needs to know about using this tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or provide examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Change') and resource ('drive type') with specific options (1541/1571/1581), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_config_item' or other drive-related tools, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple drive-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., drive_on, drive_off, drive_reset, mount_disk_file), there's no indication of when this specific mode-change operation is appropriate versus other drive operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 implies a read operation ('Restore') but doesn't specify if this requires special permissions, what happens to current configuration (e.g., overwritten), or any side effects like system restart. For a tool with potential configuration changes, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of configuration management and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' includes, how the restore interacts with other tools (e.g., 'save_config_to_flash'), or what the expected outcome is. For a tool that could impact system state, more context is needed.
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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't add unnecessary param info, but it doesn't fully explain the absence of parameters (e.g., why no inputs are needed).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Restore') and resource ('configuration from non-volatile memory'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'save_config_to_flash' or 'reset_config_to_default', which would require more specific context about what 'restore' entails versus 'reset' or how it relates to 'save'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reset_config_to_default' or 'set_config_item'. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., after a save operation) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Halt' implies a state-changing operation, it doesn't specify whether this is reversible (presumably via 'machine_resume'), what side effects occur, or what permissions/conditions are required. The technical mechanism ('via DMA line') is mentioned but without explaining practical implications.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and mechanism, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'halt' means practically (CPU stopped but power on?), whether the halt persists, what operations remain possible while halted, or what the expected outcome/response is. The technical mechanism is mentioned but without clarifying why this matters versus other pause methods.
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 with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's core functionality, which is correct for a parameterless operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Halt') and target resource ('C64 CPU via DMA line'), providing a specific technical mechanism. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'machine_reset' or 'machine_poweroff' which also affect machine state, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific pause method.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'machine_resume' (implied opposite) or other machine control siblings. The description lacks context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific CPU halting method.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('power down') but does not explain what this entails (e.g., whether it's immediate, reversible, requires specific permissions, or affects other operations). The '(U64 only)' hint adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool (powering down a machine) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, reversibility), expected outcomes, or error conditions, which are critical for an agent to use it correctly in a complex environment with many sibling tools.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it includes '(U64 only)' as a constraint, providing slight extra context beyond the schema. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('power down') and the target ('the machine'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'machine_reboot' or 'machine_reset', which are related but distinct operations on the same resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'machine_reboot' or 'machine_reset'. It mentions '(U64 only)', which is a technical constraint but not a usage scenario or exclusion rule, leaving the agent without context for selection among similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Restart and reinitialize' implies a potentially disruptive operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what state is preserved/lost, how long it takes, or what happens to ongoing operations. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'reinitialize' entails, what the expected outcome is, whether there are side effects, or what happens if the operation fails. Given the complexity of machine control operations, more context is needed.
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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Restart and reinitialize') and the target resource ('the Ultimate device'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'machine_reset' or 'machine_poweroff', which appear to be related machine control operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'machine_reset' or 'machine_poweroff'. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or what distinguishes a reboot from other machine state changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is (e.g., system restart, memory clear).
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that likely performs a system-level operation with potential side effects, the description is inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral disclosure, it fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Send reset signal') and target resource ('to the C64'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'drive_reset' or 'machine_reboot', which could cause confusion about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'machine_reboot', 'drive_reset', or 'reset_config_to_default'. The description lacks context about appropriate scenarios or prerequisites for sending a reset signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the operation is a read (implying non-destructive) but doesn't cover aspects like permissions needed, potential side effects, error conditions, or return format. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Read debug register') and adds a crucial constraint ('U64 only'), making it appropriately sized and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 read operation that might have implicit behavioral nuances (e.g., what debug register is targeted, return format), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns, error handling, or integration context, which are important for effective use.
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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('debug register'), with the specific constraint 'U64 only' indicating it reads 64-bit unsigned integer values. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'write_debug_register' beyond the obvious read/write distinction, missing potential scope or usage differences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_memory' or 'write_debug_register', nor any context about prerequisites or typical scenarios. The description lacks explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is destructive (likely, but not confirmed), requires specific permissions, affects system state, or has side effects like restarting services, which is inadequate for a mutation tool.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'factory defaults' entail, whether the reset is reversible, confirmation prompts, or return values, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's full impact.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but this is acceptable as the baseline for zero params is 4, since there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('reset') and target ('configuration to factory defaults'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'load_config_from_flash' or 'save_config_to_flash' which also handle configuration, missing explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the machine must be in a certain state), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'set_config_item' for partial changes, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing critical behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a destructive operation (overwrites previous flash), requires specific permissions, has side effects on system state, or provides any confirmation/error response. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and target, making it optimally concise for a zero-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a configuration persistence tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'current configuration' encompasses, whether the operation is atomic/reversible, what happens on failure, or what the expected outcome is. Given the complexity of non-volatile memory operations, more behavioral context is needed.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline 4 since it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Save') and target ('current configuration to non-volatile memory'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'load_config_from_flash' or 'reset_config_to_default', which would require explicit comparison to earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_config_item' for individual changes or 'load_config_from_flash' for restoring configurations. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a configuration set first) or exclusions, leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'List all' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether it returns all categories at once, if there's pagination, what format the output takes, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more context about what 'list all' means operationally (e.g., return format, completeness guarantees). The description meets basic requirements but leaves room for improvement.
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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description aligns perfectly with the empty input schema, confirming no parameters are needed, which is appropriate for this simple list operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all configuration categories' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('configuration categories'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_config_category' which retrieves a specific category, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_config_category' (for single categories) and 'set_config_item' (for modifications), there's no indication of when this list operation is preferred over other configuration-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get information'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or whether it returns real-time or cached data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what 'information' includes (e.g., drive status, image details), return format, or error conditions, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer behavior.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here, earning a baseline score of 4 since no compensation is needed for missing param details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get information') and target resources ('all floppy drives and mounted images'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_file_info' or 'get_config_category' that also retrieve information, though those target different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or contrast with sibling tools like 'drive_set_mode' or 'mount_disk_file' that might relate to drive operations. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'upload and load' and 'without executing', which implies a write operation to memory or storage, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing data, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information: action ('upload and load'), resource ('program file'), and critical constraints ('without executing', 'base64 encoded'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a file upload/load operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what 'load' entails, error handling), prerequisites, or return values. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use in an AI agent scenario.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'data' fully documented in the schema as 'Base64 encoded PRG file data'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as file size limits or encoding specifics. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('upload and load') and resource ('a program file') with the specific constraint 'without executing' and format 'base64 encoded'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'run_prg_upload' (which executes) and 'load_prg_file' (which loads from a file path rather than upload). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the target system or device, leaving some ambiguity about what 'load' means in this context.
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 by specifying 'without executing', which suggests this tool is for loading programs into memory for later execution rather than immediate running. It doesn't provide explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., 'run_prg_upload' for execution) gives some implied guidance. No clear when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action ('Resume') but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, potential side effects (e.g., on running programs), or what happens if invoked when not paused. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action and context ('Resume C64 from paused state'), making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a state-changing operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'resuming' entails (e.g., does it restore execution, affect peripherals?), potential errors, or return values. For a mutation tool with no structured support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Resume') and target resource ('C64'), specifying it transitions from a 'paused state'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'machine_pause' (opposite action) and 'machine_poweroff'/'machine_reboot' (different state changes). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'C64' refers to (e.g., a Commodore 64 emulator), which slightly limits specificity.
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 when the C64 is paused, as it mentions 'from paused state', but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'machine_reset' or 'machine_poweroff'. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided, leaving some ambiguity about the required prior state or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves version information, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify response format, error conditions, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It uses minimal words to convey the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on return values or behavioral traits. For a basic read operation, this is minimally viable, but it could benefit from specifying the response format or usage 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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, and the baseline for this scenario is 4, as it avoids redundancy while clearly stating the tool's purpose without parameter-related confusion.
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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('REST API version number from the Commodore 64 Ultimate Computer device'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform operations like configuration management, file handling, or machine control. It precisely communicates what the tool does without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context for version checking, or any exclusions. While the purpose is clear, there is no explicit or implied usage context to help an agent decide when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 sending keys to a 'keyboard buffer,' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this requires specific machine states, has side effects (e.g., interrupting programs), or how it interacts with other tools. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds necessary context in the second. Both sentences earn their place by avoiding redundancy and providing essential information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
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 is adequate for a simple tool with one parameter, but it lacks details on behavioral aspects like effects on the C64 state or error conditions. For a mutation tool in a complex emulation context, more completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'key' fully documented via an enum of special key names. The description adds marginal value by clarifying these are 'special key' names for control keys, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already specifies.
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 specific action ('Send a special key') and target resource ('C64 keyboard buffer'), with explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'type_text' by specifying it's for 'control keys that can't be easily typed as text.' This provides a distinct purpose that avoids redundancy.
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 clear context for when to use this tool ('For control keys that can't be easily typed as text'), which implicitly distinguishes it from 'type_text' for regular text input. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives beyond this implication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it auto-detects graphics modes, lists supported modes, returns base64 encoded PNG data with mode info, and implies a read-only operation (capture). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, performance considerations, or error conditions, leaving some gaps.
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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose and auto-detection feature, the second lists supported modes and return format. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded for quick understanding.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the tool's behavior and output (base64 PNG with mode info). However, it lacks details on error handling, performance implications, or example usage, which could be beneficial for a tool with no structured output documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 both parameters (scale and include_border). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.
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 specific action ('capture'), target resource ('C64 screen'), and output format ('PNG image'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which involve configuration, file operations, machine control, or memory access rather than screen capture. It provides a complete purpose statement with no ambiguity.
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 when needing a screenshot of the C64 emulator, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (none exist among siblings) or any prerequisites. It mentions auto-detection of graphics modes, which suggests it's appropriate for any active mode, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses key behavioral traits: automatic handling of long text via chunking, how the C64 processes keystrokes, conversion from ASCII to PETSCII, and specific memory location ($0277). This goes well beyond what the input schema provides.
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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential technical details and usage examples. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it both comprehensive and efficient.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of the tool's behavior, parameters, and usage. The only minor gap is lack of information about return values or error conditions, but given the context (low-complexity input tool), this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by mentioning text conversion to uppercase PETSCII and special key placeholders, but doesn't provide significant additional parameter semantics beyond what's already well-documented in the schema.
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 specific action ('Type text into the C64 keyboard buffer') with precise technical details (converts ASCII to PETSCII, writes to buffer at $0277). It distinguishes from sibling 'send_key' by handling text input rather than individual keystrokes.
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 clear context for when to use this tool (typing text into the C64) and includes important usage details about special key placeholders and automatic chunking. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'send_key' for single keystrokes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![c64u-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xphileby/c64u-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xphileby/c64u-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![c64u-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xphileby/c64u-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xphileby/c64u-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/xphileby/c64u-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server