rom_inspect

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the internal operations (format detection, header/CRC parsing), which implies a read-only operation. It does not state that it is non-mutating, how it behaves on an invalid or non-N64 file, or whether it reads the whole file or just the header.

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 compact sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource and then the extracted fields. It could be tightened slightly by naming an alternative tool, but nothing present is wasted.

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 single-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, the description does list the fields returned (byte order, header, entry point, CRC, ROM name), which is what an agent needs to decide to call it. Gaps remain around error behavior on unrecognized files and the exact result shape.

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 parameter ('path') with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it as a workspace path. The description adds no constraint such as accepted extensions, size limits, or whether the file must already be in the workspace, so baseline 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Inspect an N64 ROM file') and enumerates the concrete outputs: byte-order detection (.z64/.v64/.n64), header, entry point, CRC and ROM name. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as rom_identify_format, analyze_n64_rom or rom_validate, which overlap heavily with this purpose.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the word 'inspect', which is weak given several siblings (rom_identify_format, analyze_n64_rom, rom_validate) plausibly apply to the same ROM file.

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