get_room_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the shape and semantics of the result only indirectly available otherwise: scopes are priority-sorted, and currentScope may be null to mean the global space, which is genuinely non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

Three short, front-loaded paragraphs: what it returns, when to call it, and how to read the output. Slight redundancy in the second paragraph ('tells you which room is active and what other rooms you have access to' restates the first sentence), but overall tight.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining the return payload, and it does so for scopes ordering and the null-means-global convention. It stops short of describing the default-scope field's meaning in any depth, though it names it up front.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter semantics that do not exist.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get the agent's current room context') and enumerates exactly what that context contains: scope, available scopes, and default scope. This cleanly separates it from the mutating sibling set_room, which an agent would reach for only when it wants to change scope rather than read it.

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?

It gives explicit context for invocation: 'Call this when you need to understand where your questions and searches will be directed,' plus a scenario for team-scoped work. It does not, however, name the sibling set_room as the alternative when the agent wants to switch rooms rather than inspect them, so the when-not path is left implicit.

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