torch_export_code

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool 'exports' decompiled C code, implying filesystem output, but it does not state whether files are overwritten, where output goes, whether the ROM is modified, or what side effects occur. The 10-minute default timeout and optional custom torch path suggest heavier operations that are not disclosed.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It avoids fluff, but the phrase 'decompiled C source code representation' is slightly awkward and the description could be more readable without significant length increase.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is not enough context for reliable invocation. The schema describes parameter names, but the description does not explain operational details such as whether a config.yml is needed by default, where output lands, or what the tool returns or writes on success.

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 the schema already documents all parameters including 'single', 'srcdir', 'destdir', and 'torch_path'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline of 3.

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 names a specific action ('Export') and a specific resource ('decompiled C source code representation of N64 assets from a ROM'). 'C source code' differentiates it from sibling export tools like torch_export_headers and torch_export_archive, so an agent can identify what this tool produces without opening the schema.

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 intended use is implied: use this when you want decompiled C code for N64 assets from a ROM. However, the description gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or references to alternative export tools, so the agent must infer context from the sibling list.

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