romm_search_by_hash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It fails to mention what happens if no hash is provided, behavior on multiple hashes, error conditions, or any operation side effects. The description is too sparse.

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 at two sentences with no unnecessary words. However, it is lacking crucial information that could be added without making it verbose. The structure is clear and front-loaded.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain the return value, and does not cover edge cases like empty input or multiple matches. It is incomplete for a tool with 3 optional parameters.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It lists the three hash parameters with their type names (e.g., 'CRC32 hash string') but provides no additional context, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema already indicates (string type).

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 action ('identify a ROM') and the method (by file hash). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'romm_search' by focusing on hash-based lookup, but does not explicitly mention the difference.

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 instructs to 'provide at least one hash value' but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other search tools, nor any exclusions or context for use.

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