gb_lookup_cart_code

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 does convey read-only lookup modes and gives a concrete example ($13 -> MBC3+RAM+BATTERY). However, it does not describe the output format, what happens when code/name are both provided or both omitted, or behavior on no match, which could matter given there is no output schema.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the three operational modes, and the second sentence adds the scope of the lookup tables. Every sentence earns its place without redundant filler.

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 relatively simple lookup tool, the description plus schema is mostly complete: parameters are well-documented and the lookup domains are enumerated. The main gap is that there is no output schema and no explicit return-format or edge-case guidance, but the tool's behavior is straightforward enough that this is a minor rather than critical omission.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics by relating kind values to real cartridge-header concepts and giving a concrete example mapping. It does not add much about the 'name' parameter beyond the schema, but the added context is meaningful.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Decode a cartridge-header code, list a whole table, or search it by name.' It also enumerates the covered code categories, which makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like gb_decode_opcode, gb_lookup_register, or gb_decode_cart_header.

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 for when to use the tool: decoding a code, listing a whole table, or reverse-searching by name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it for cartridge-header code lookups.

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