torch_export_headers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Generate C headers' and does not mention that this likely invokes an external binary, writes files to destdir, may require a config.yml in srcdir, or what side effects or failure modes exist. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a tool that produces files.

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 short sentence and is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, 'using Torch' is somewhat redundant with the tool name and context, and the sentence is too terse to carry operational guidance, though there is no filler or structural clutter.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what output the agent should expect, whether destdir or srcdir are needed for typical use, or what happens during generation. An agent would need to inspect parameter names and infer workflows to call this tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3 even without additional parameter details in the description. The description adds general purpose context but does not enrich the meaning of rom_path, destdir, srcdir, or timeout_ms beyond their schema descriptions.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Generate C headers for assets from an N64 ROM using Torch.' This distinguishes it from sibling export tools like torch_export_archive or torch_export_modding by naming the artifact type (C headers) and source (N64 ROM). It is clear but does not elaborate on which assets or what the headers are used for.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as torch_export_code, torch_export_archive, or torch_export_modding. The description gives no context for selecting it, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name and the single sentence.

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