romm_get_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'full detail' but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. Minimal disclosure beyond function.

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 two lines: first line states purpose succinctly, second line explains the parameter. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and contains no extraneous text.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It lists three aspects (metadata, user status, saves). However, it lacks guidance on error cases or handling invalid IDs, which is a minor 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?

The single parameter rom_id is described as 'The ROM's ID (from romm_library_items or romm_search).' This adds meaningful context beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage), guiding the agent on how to obtain the ID.

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 'Get full detail for a single ROM — metadata, user status, saves.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('single ROM'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like romm_library_items (list) or romm_search (search).

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 by providing the source of rom_id ('from romm_library_items or romm_search'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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