romm_platforms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states it lists platforms with ROM counts, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or if the list is scoped to a user. For a zero-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate.

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, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without waste. It is front-loaded and earns its place.

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 zero parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description is sufficient for a simple list operation. It does not explain the output schema but that is unnecessary since an output schema exists. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per guidelines, baseline 4 is appropriate as no additional parameter meaning is needed.

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 'List platforms with ROM counts' uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'platforms' with the distinguishing detail 'with ROM counts', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'romm_collections' which lists collections.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'romm_collections' or 'romm_library_items'. The purpose is implied but lacks when-not or alternative recommendations.

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