rom_compare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the core behavior—byte-by-byte comparison and segment-level difference reporting—but does not state whether the operation is read-only, how mismatched ROM sizes are handled, or what form the reported differences take.

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 with no redundant or filler wording. Every element—comparison subject, method, and output focus—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 low-complexity two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. The main remaining gap is that, without an output schema, it only vaguely characterizes the returned difference report rather than describing its structure.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already labels pathA as the original ROM and pathB as the modified ROM. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so it meets the baseline for fully documented parameters without adding extra semantic value.

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 states a specific verb and resource: compare two N64 ROM versions byte-by-byte and report segment differences. This clearly distinguishes it from single-ROM inspection tools like rom_inspect or rom_identify_format, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose statement: use it when comparing two ROM versions. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no comparison against alternatives such as diff_function, compare_functions, or equivalence_record.

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