analyze_n64_rom

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it omits whether the operation mutates or only reads the file, whether 'authorized' is an enforced check or just a caveat, and any cost or performance characteristics of string scanning. The enumerated output fields are the only real behavioral disclosure, and the absence of an output schema makes that useful but insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the output enumeration is compact. It is efficient, though it spends its one sentence on scope and outputs rather than on the gaps (parameters, read-only nature) that matter more.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description's list of returned metadata partially substitutes for a return spec, which is a real contribution. But an unannotated two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage leaves the agent without path requirements, mutation semantics, or parameter behavior, so it is only minimally complete.

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% for two parameters, and the description never mentions romPath or maxStrings, so it adds no meaning about path constraints, supported ROM extensions, or what maxStrings caps. 'String metadata' hints vaguely at the string parameter but gives no units, defaults, or the 1000 upper bound implications.

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 ('Analyze') and resource ('authorized local N64 ROM') and enumerates the produced metadata (format, region, entrypoint, checksum, code regions, strings), which is far more informative than the name alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as rom_inspect, rom_identify_format, or rom_find_code_regions, whose names suggest overlapping output.

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 phrase 'authorized local' implies a precondition (legitimate, on-disk input) but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-a-sibling guidance despite many overlapping ROM tools. The agent must infer that this is the broad metadata sweep and that narrower tools exist.

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