romm_user_profile

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Browse') and lists parameter options, but omits details like authentication needs, rate limits, or response structure. The output schema helps, but the description itself is minimal on behavior.

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?

Extremely concise: two short sentences front-load the purpose and then detail the parameter. No extraneous words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does and the parameter semantics. Minor missing context includes whether results are paginated or ordered, but this is acceptable for the tool's simplicity.

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 description explains the single parameter 'status_filter' with all options and the special case of empty string for favorites, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default. This compensates well for the 0% schema coverage, though it could mention that the parameter is optional.

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 states 'Browse ROMs by user status' with a list of statuses, clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like romm_search or romm_library_items by focusing on user status filtering, though it could be more precise about being the current user's profile.

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 over alternatives. The description implies use for status-filtered browsing but does not compare to other browsing or search tools, leaving the agent to infer context.

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