list_rom_notes

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint: the result list is capped at 100 notes, which is not expressed in the schema. It does not mention ordering or pagination, but the cap plus the annotation coverage provide solid transparency.

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?

Single sentence with no filler and the key constraint ('up to 100') front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, a bounded result set, and rich annotations covering safety. The output schema exists, so return value documentation is not required. The only missing details are ordering or pagination behavior, which are minor for a bounded list operation.

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%, so the description needs to compensate. It relates rom_id to the ROM through the phrase 'attached to a ROM', but it does not explain how the id should be obtained, what the integer represents, or any edge cases. With only one obvious integer parameter, the gap is minor but still uncompensated.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('notes attached to a ROM'), and an output bound ('up to 100'). This clearly distinguishes the read-only note-listing operation from the sibling create/update/delete_rom_note tools.

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 the use case is retrieving notes for a particular ROM, and the readOnlyHint supports non-mutating use. However, it does not explicitly state when it should be used instead of alternatives, nor give any exclusions or conditions. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and sibling context.

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