config_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions resolving paths and reporting existence, but does not specify what 'required pieces' are, whether the tool has side effects, what the output format is, or what happens if pieces are missing. Minimal and vague.

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 words. It communicates the core action and purpose efficiently, earning full marks for conciseness and structure.

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 and no annotations to supplement the description. The description does not explain what the report contains, how the result is returned, or any prerequisites. For a diagnostic tool with 5 optional parameters, more contextual detail is needed to fully understand its behavior and output.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions for each, including defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides adequate meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: resolving MAME environment/config paths and reporting which required pieces exist. It uses specific verbs ('resolve', 'report') and a clear resource ('MAME env/config paths'), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on launching, memory operations, and script execution.

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 a pre-flight configuration check but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like audit_romset or mame_launch. There is no explicit exclusion or reference to other tools, making the usage context only implicit.

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