nds_list_overlays

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does add value by stating that it does not claim runtime loaded state, which is a useful caveat. However, it does not mention that the operation is read-only, what happens with invalid input, or the nature of the returned metadata, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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. The verb and key qualifiers are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description should provide more context. It does not explain what fields are in the metadata, how limit/offset work, or whether a valid ROM is required. For a list operation, this leaves too many unanswered questions for an agent to use it 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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only implies the processor parameter via 'ARM9/ARM7', but leaves 'rom', 'limit', and 'offset' completely unexplained. This is insufficient for a tool with four 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 the action ('List') and resource ('bounded ARM9/ARM7 overlay metadata'), and adds a scoping phrase ('without claiming runtime loaded state') that distinguishes it from tools that might report loaded state. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like nds_list_files or nds_inspect_rom, which slightly lowers the score.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'without claiming runtime loaded state' is a behavioral qualifier, not a usage directive. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where another tool would be more appropriate.

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