nds_extract_analysis_bundle

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 reveals that output is 'deterministic' and that the tool is selective (not dumping all assets), but it omits critical details such as what the bundle contains, whether it writes files to disk, or what the return value represents. This is a significant gap 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.

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

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, making it concise and front-loaded. It earns its place by conveying the core action and a key distinguishing trait. However, its brevity means it sacrifices important details, leaving it short of a 5.

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

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate by explaining return values, side effects, and context, but it only offers a high-level action. The tool itself is simple (1 param), yet the description leaves major gaps about what the agent should expect before and after invocation, making it incomplete.

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?

The input schema has a single 'rom' parameter with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description never mentions the parameter, so the agent receives no guidance on what value to pass (e.g., file path, ROM name) or its format. With the description failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, the parameter semantics are essentially undocumented.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Generate') and resource ('deterministic NDS static-analysis bundle'), which clearly differentiates it from a full asset dump. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it lacks the explicit sibling differentiation seen in top-tier examples.

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 phrase 'without dumping every NitroFS asset' implies a lighter-weight use case compared to full extraction, but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor any named alternative like nds_extract_component. This is sufficient for basic inference but not explicit enough for an AI to confidently choose between tools.

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