nds_ghidra_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is read-only ('without invoking Ghidra or mutating files'), deterministic, and SHA-scoped. This goes beyond a generic status description, offering meaningful safety and scoping context.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence front-loads the verb 'Read' and packs key qualifiers (deterministic, SHA-scoped, without invoking Ghidra, without mutating files) with no filler. Every phrase adds value.

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?

For a simple one-parameter status read, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks detail on what 'Ghidra bridge/project state' actually includes and does not differentiate from get_project_status. With no output schema, the ambiguity about return fields is a noticeable gap.

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% and the description does not explain the 'rom' parameter beyond implying a ROM path or hash. While the parameter is somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving format and canonicalization unspecified.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and a clear resource: 'SHA-scoped Ghidra bridge/project state' for a canonical Nintendo DS ROM. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nds_ghidra_decompile_function or get_project_status by emphasizing it's a state read without invoking Ghidra.

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 a side-effect-free status check is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project_status or nds_ghidra_bootstrap. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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