iso_verify

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the whole burden. It discloses a prerequisite (an installed ISO reader) and bounds the claim to filesystem structure rather than gameplay, which is genuinely helpful. It does not state failure behavior, read-only nature, or what a negative result looks like.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and check targets, followed by a single scope-limiting caveat. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the check scope and the reader prerequisite but omits the hash-verification path and any indication of the pass/fail result shape. Adequate but with a clear gap around expectedSha256.

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. The description implies isoPath (the ISO being verified) but never mentions expectedSha256, leaving the optional 64-character hash parameter entirely unexplained in both schema and prose, despite it being the only integrity-verification lever.

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 pairs the specific verb "Verify" with a specific resource ("PS2 ISO") and names the exact structural checks (SYSTEM.CNF and BOOT.ELF present). This clearly separates it from siblings like rom_validate, package_ps2_iso, and run_pcsx2, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer.

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 sentence "This is a filesystem gate, not a gameplay claim" implies the tool is a pre-flight check that can be trusted only for structure, not for whether the ISO boots. That is useful scoping, but no explicit when-to-use trigger or alternative (e.g., use rom_validate for other formats) is given.

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