Validate a local N64 ROM's header, byte order, checksum metadata, and hash in place without copying or modifying the file, optionally failing on checksum mismatches.
Validate a local N64 ROM header, byte order, checksum metadata and hash without copying or modifying it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Local ROM path inside the configured workspace | |
| requireChecksum | No | Fail when the N64 boot checksum does not match |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose that the operation is non-destructive ('without copying or modifying it'), which is valuable. It does not say what a failed validation looks like, whether failures raise errors or return findings, or how checksum mismatch is reported.
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 list of validated aspects is dense but each item is informative. The non-destructive guarantee is tacked on at the end rather than front-loaded, which is a minor structural weakness.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a validation result contains (pass/fail, diagnostics, checksum expected vs actual) — and it is silent on that. For a two-parameter read-only validator this is adequate but leaves a real gap.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the workspace constraint on path and the fail-on-mismatch semantics of requireChecksum. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?
States a specific verb (validate) and resource (local N64 ROM) and enumerates the aspects checked: header, byte order, checksum metadata, hash. This separates it reasonably from siblings like rom_inspect or rom_identify_format, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the distinction.
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 word 'validate' and the 'local' qualifier, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus rom_inspect, rom_identify_format, or analyze_n64_rom. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.