audit_romset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool runs a command and returns output tail, but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., MAME and ROMs must be present), timeout behavior, exit codes, or the exact nature of the returned 'tail'. This is a significant gap for a command-execution tool.

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 sentence that is specific and free of fluff. It front-loads the key command and output detail, earning its place without unnecessary wording.

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 has no output schema, so the description should clarify the return value. It says 'audit output tail' but does not specify what 'tail' means (line count, summary, etc.) or whether stderr is included. However, all parameters are well-documented in the schema, which mitigates the gaps. Overall, it is adequate but leaves ambiguity about the output format.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter context by showing `system` in the command, but it does not meaningfully elaborate on parameters beyond the schema. The schema already handles the parameter semantics adequately.

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 clearly states the tool runs a specific command (`mame -verifyroms <system>`) and returns the output tail. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle gameplay, Lua execution, or memory access.

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 description implies usage (when you need to audit a romset), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. There is no mention of alternative tools or scenarios where this tool should be preferred.

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