controller_checkpoint_read

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that data is 'integrity-checked', 'provider-neutral', and scoped to the 'current exact NDS ROM SHA', plus warns about the meaning of the prose. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name, though it omits return format and error conditions.

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

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

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating the function and providing a critical caveat.

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

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

The description is adequate for a simple read tool, but since there is no output schema, the absence of return format and behavior when no checkpoint exists leaves gaps. The caveat about not being ROM evidence is helpful, but completeness is limited.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description contextualizes the `rom` parameter by mentioning the 'current exact NDS ROM SHA', indicating the parameter holds that SHA. It does not explicitly map the parameter name to the value or describe its format beyond what schema provides.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool reads 'the integrity-checked provider-neutral controller handoff state' for a specific ROM SHA, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling `controller_checkpoint_write` and other tools by focusing on reading handoff state.

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

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

The description implies usage when checkpoint handoff state is needed and explicitly warns that the checkpoint is 'not authoritative ROM evidence', providing a when-not. It does not name alternative tools but gives clear context and an exclusion.

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