nds_list_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only action through 'List' and hints at pagination via 'bounded,' but does not explain limitations, ordering, or potential errors. This is acceptable for a simple list operation but leaves room for more detail.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource. It is appropriately sized with no filler, though it omits important parameter information that could be integrated without bloating the text.

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 tool has four parameters (one required), pagination controls, and no output schema or annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not cover return values, parameter behavior, or use cases, making it insufficient for an agent to use confidently.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description makes no mention of the 'rom', 'limit', 'offset', or 'prefix' parameters. The word 'bounded' vaguely suggests limit/offset but does not explain their semantics. The description adds almost no value for understanding how to populate the parameters.

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 'List bounded NitroFS/FAT file mappings from the canonical NDS model,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like nds_list_overlays by naming a distinct resource type (file mappings vs overlays), but does not explicitly call out alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nds_list_overlays or nds_inspect_rom. The description merely states what it does without any contextual conditions or exclusion criteria.

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