get_rom

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description only needs to add beyond safety. It does add behavioral scoping: the returned view excludes provider internals, filesystem details, hashes, and credential URLs, which is useful context for what the agent will receive.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. The action and key exclusions are front-loaded, so the description is easy to scan and every word 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-parameter read-only getter with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could add guidance on how to find rom_id or when to prefer list_roms, but the annotations and output schema cover most operational needs.

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 0% and the description does not explain rom_id provenance, format, or how to obtain it. With only one parameter, the description could easily compensate, but it does not.

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 and resource: 'Get one bounded ROM view.' It also explicitly scopes out provider internals, filesystem details, hashes, and credential URLs, which distinguishes it from lower-level or listing tools like list_roms.

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 implies this is for retrieving a single bounded ROM view rather than listing or getting internals, but itname does not name an alternative tool or provide when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. The usage must be inferred from the word 'one' and the exclusions.

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