romm_library_items

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses behavior: it's a read-only browse with pagination. It mentions pagination parameters and filtering capabilities. However, it does not state authentication requirements or rate limits, which are common for browse endpoints.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by parameter definitions. Every sentence adds value; no extraneous content. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 no annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete for a browse tool. It covers all parameters and pagination. Minor omission: could mention maximum result limit (implied by limit param) or behavior when no results.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by providing clear semantics for all 7 parameters (e.g., 'platform_id: Filter to a single platform (use romm_platforms to find IDs). 0 = all.'). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema defaults.

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 purpose: 'Browse ROMs — filter by platform, search term, or favorites. Paginated.' This provides a specific verb (browse/filter), resource (ROMs), and key functionalities, distinguishing it from siblings like romm_get_item which targets a single item.

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 explains how to use parameters but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., romm_search or romm_get_item). No 'when not to use' or comparative context is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter descriptions.

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