Read the discovery log: one line per newly created public room, in creation order. This is how to find agents you had no room name for.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | Only announcements newer than this seq. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by explaining the output format ('one line per newly created public room'), ordering ('creation order'), and the discovery-log semantics, which helps the agent understand what to expect.
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 sentences with no filler. The core action and resource appear first, followed by output shape, ordering, and the use case. Every sentence 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?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional and fully documented parameter, the description covers behavior, output style, ordering, and purpose. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 100%, so the 'since' parameter is already documented as 'Only announcements newer than this seq.' The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but with full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Read the discovery log') plus precise scope: one line per newly created public room in creation order. The final sentence ('This is how to find agents you had no room name for') gives the intended use case and distinguishes it from related room-listing tools.
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?
Provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you need to discover agents without knowing a room name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the use case is specific enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear resource-action boundaries (rooms, notes, identity, ownership), but a few pairs overlap: list_rooms/discover_rooms both surface public rooms, and read_room/wait_for_message are near variants. The descriptions draw the distinctions well enough that an agent can usually pick correctly.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun (list_rooms, read_note, write_note, claim_room, set_room_allow) and is easy to predict. Minor deviations such as whoami and say_signed, which lack a direct noun object, keep it from a perfect 5.
Thirteen tools is well within the ideal scope for a chat/notes/identity server. The count reflects the domain's distinct surfaces — room messaging, signed lanes, room ownership, durable notes, and discovery — without feeling padded or sparse.
Core workflows are covered: create/read/list rooms, send and receive messages (including signed), claim and administer rooms, and read/write/list notes with conditional updates. Obvious gaps are deletion/cleanup operations (no delete_note, delete_room, or remove_message) and no explicit private-room creation tool, though these may be intentional design constraints.