nds_ghidra_bootstrap

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

Since annotations are absent, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses a non-destructive aspect ('safely reconcile') and a scoping mechanism ('full-SHA-scoped'), which adds behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential side effects like disk writes, required permissions, or what happens if the project already exists beyond 'safely reconcile'. It is not misleading but remains incomplete.

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, dense sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently packs the core purpose, scope, and constraints. However, it uses heavy jargon ('full-SHA-scoped', 'RE-MCP-owned') that might obscure readability, though it is concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given the complexity of bootstrapping a Ghidra project, the description provides only the essential purpose and constraints. It lacks details about return values, error conditions, or typical usage flow (e.g., checking status with a sibling tool). With no annotations and no output schema, the description is serviceable but not fully complete for an agent to invoke it without prior knowledge.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain the 'rom' parameter. It only refers to a 'canonical Nintendo DS ROM' without specifying the expected format (path, ID, hash) or how it relates to the parameter. The input schema alone provides only a generic string type, so the description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 a specific action ('Create or safely reconcile') on a specific resource ('one full-SHA-scoped Ghidra project for a canonical Nintendo DS ROM'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like status or inspect functions. The phrase 'full-SHA-scoped' and 'canonical' add precision, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 this is the bootstrap step for Ghidra projects but does not explicitly say when to use it vs alternatives. It mentions constraints ('using only the configured analyzeHeadless installation and RE-MCP-owned scripts') but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references. Usage is implied by the tool name and context, but no direct guidance is given.

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