room

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful non-obvious trait: passing `status` broadcasts what the caller is working on to other agents, making this not a purely passive read. It omits other behavioral facts such as whether omitting status is side-effect free, idempotency, and any concurrency/permission constraints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core value in a single colon-delimited clause, then the invocation timing, then the rationale for `status`. Tight overall, though the closing clause 'so the other agent does not have to guess' restates the announce behavior already implied.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the single optional parameter is addressed. The description covers purpose, timing, and the status side effect, leaving only minor gaps around default/empty behavior for a tool of this 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the lone `status` parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explaining that `status` announces current work rather than merely recording state, but it gives no format, length, or empty-value guidance for the parameter.

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 defines the otherwise cryptic name 'room' as a state snapshot with three concrete components: who is here, what is held, what is new. That is a specific verb+resource, not a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like inbox, history, or owner, which prevents 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?

'Call it when you start and after each step' gives an explicit, actionable trigger for invocation. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not-to-use condition (e.g., vs inbox or history), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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