get_rom

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral constraint beyond that — the 50-file cap — but says nothing about truncation, permissions, or error 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action ('Get one ROM') is front-loaded before the optional-section detail. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the rich annotations cover safety. For a simple two-parameter read tool the definition is nearly complete, missing only error/empty-result behavior and explicit sibling routing.

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 carry the param burden. It explains that sections are opt-in and adds the 'max 50' constraint on files (not represented in the schema's maxItems=3), but rom_id is left entirely unexplained and the enum values themselves merely restate the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one ROM and synopsis'), making the single-item retrieval scope clear against siblings like search_roms or list_collections. It does not explicitly name the sibling to avoid, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

'Opt into metadata, files (max 50), or progress' gives useful guidance on when to include optional sections, but there is no statement of when to use this tool versus search_roms, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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