list_roms

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context beyond that by mentioning bounded pagination and a compact response that excludes provider-internal fields, which informs the caller about output shape and limits. The phrasing is somewhat vague but still provides useful extra 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary purpose first. 'Provider-internal-free' is awkward jargon and slightly hurts readability, but overall the description is compact and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 ight parameters and a rich filter set, this description is under-specified. It does not explain filter semantics, the meaning of matched/missing/favorite, ordering behavior, or pagination bounds. An output schema exists, but input semantics are largely left to an agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It only vaguely relates to limit/offset through 'bounded pagination' and to search_term through 'Search', but leaves the other 11 parameters such as matched, missing, favorite, platform_ids, collection_id, smart_collection_id, and ordering controls semantically unexplained.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Search/list ROMs'. It further clarifies scope with 'bounded pagination' and 'compact provider-internal-free response', setting expectations for a listing operation rather than a single-record fetch like get_rom. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling ROM-related 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 use for searching and listing ROMs, which gives a clear general context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_rom, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions under which another tool should be used.

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