nds_inspect_rom

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explicitly states 'without modifying it', which is a critical non-destructive safety property. While it does not detail return format or error behavior, the main side-effect concern is covered.

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 entire description is one concise sentence that front-loads the main action and safety property. There is no fluff or repetition, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core purpose and non-modifying behavior, but omits details about the content of the structure summary, return format, prerequisites, or edge cases. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent.

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 sole parameter 'rom' is documented only by its schema type (string). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain how the ROM should be provided (path, format, etc.). The name is self-evident, but the description fails to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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 action (parse), target (Nintendo DS ROM), and output (canonical static structure summary). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nds_list_files or nds_resolve_rom_offset, which focus on specific aspects rather than the entire structure.

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 use when a static structure summary is needed, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, nor exclusions. Sibling tools exist for listing files or overlays, yet no guidance is provided for choosing this tool over them.

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