rom_identify_format

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one genuine behavioral trait: the file is not read in full, so the call is cheap and non-destructive. It omits the other traits an agent needs — that the path must exist and be readable, and what the identification result looks like (e.g. big-endian z64 vs byte-swapped v64 vs word-swapped n64).

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?

One short sentence with the operation front-loaded and the efficiency constraint attached as a qualifier. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 path in), but with no output schema and no annotations the description is the only place to learn what is returned — and it never names the possible format values or the failure mode for an unrecognized header. It is adequate to select the tool but not to interpret its result.

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?

There is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines 'path' as a ROM file in the workspace. The description adds no further meaning about path semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource: identify the byte-order format of an N64 ROM. An agent knows exactly what the tool produces conceptually. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as rom_inspect, rom_validate, or analyze_n64_rom, which could plausibly also read ROM headers.

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 'without reading entire file' implies this is the cheap, early check to run before heavier analysis, but that is inference rather than an explicit when-to-use statement. No exclusions or named alternatives (rom_inspect, analyze_n64_rom) are mentioned, so an agent must guess which ROM tool to pick first.

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