nds_resolve_runtime_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions one trait ('without guessing overlap state') but fails to state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on failure, or any side effects. The phrase is cryptic and not fully explained.

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 that is succinct and front-loaded with the core action. It contains no filler and earns its place, though it may be too brief for complete information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and error behavior. It does not mention what the resolved output looks like, whether it can fail, or any prerequisites (e.g., ROM must be loaded). This is a significant gap for programmatic invocation.

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 description clarifies that 'address' refers to a runtime address and 'processor' is ARM9/ARM7, and that resolution involves main code and overlays (implying the 'rom' parameter provides these). However, the 'rom' parameter itself is not explicitly described, and with 0% schema coverage, more explanation is needed to fully compensate.

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 'resolve' and clearly states the resource: an ARM9/ARM7 runtime address, against main code and static overlay candidates. This distinguishes it from sibling tool 'nds_resolve_rom_offset', which likely handles ROM offsets rather than runtime addresses.

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 gives clear context on what the tool does (resolving runtime addresses against code and overlays) and the constraint 'without guessing overlap state' suggests it avoids ambiguity. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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