torch_bk64_hashes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read source (ROM at offset 0x5E90) but omits that the tool writes an output file (implied only by the output_path parameter), any failure modes, ROM validity requirements, or compute cost. For a tool that produces artifacts, the write side-effect should be stated.

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-formed sentence, verb first, with zero filler. Every word is informative, and the precise offset detail earns its place.

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-purpose tool with 100% schema coverage this is mostly adequate, but it leaves gaps: no usage context among the torch_* family, no confirmation of the output format (only hinted by output_path's 'Output YAML file path'), and no prerequisites such as requiring a valid BK64 ROM.

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 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds the domain detail 'offset 0x5E90' which enriches the ROM-source context, but it adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already documents for rom_path, timeout_ms, torch_path, and output_path.

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?

States a specific verb ('Generate'), a specific resource ('Banjo-Kazooie (BK64) baseline asset table hashes from a ROM at offset 0x5E90'), and a precise offset that removes ambiguity. The sibling tools (capabilities, validation, rendering, parsing, export/pack/import, diagnostics) are all clearly different in purpose, so no agent could confuse this with them.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and names no alternative. Usage context is only implied by the tool's unique purpose among the torch_* siblings; there is no statement of the conditions that select this tool over any other.

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