torch_parse_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation (parse, inspect, summarize) but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it mention error handling, side effects, or permission requirements. It does list the output content, which is useful, but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation support.

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 front-loads the action (Parse, inspect, and summarize) and the resource (Torch config.yml file), then efficiently lists the specific data elements. There is no filler or redundant information, making it concise and well-structured.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description lists what it displays but does not specify the return format or behavior on invalid config files. It also does not mention whether the operation has any side effects or prerequisites. While adequate for a simple parsing tool, it leaves gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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%, as the config_path parameter is fully described in the schema ('Path to config.yml file (or directory containing config.yml)'). The description adds no extra semantics about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already handles it.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs (Parse, inspect, and summarize) and identifies the exact resource (Torch config.yml file). It enumerates the specific content it processes (ROM SHA1s, game titles, asset paths, GBI microcodes, output maps, segment definitions), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like torch_validate_project or torch_export_archive.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when it is appropriate to choose this over torch_validate_project for validation or torch_export_* for conversion. There is no context about prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer.

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