List rooms

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the visibility filter ('publicly discoverable', 'private rooms never returned'), which is a behavioral guarantee not encoded in any annotation.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and immediately qualified by the exclusion. No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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 parameters, a rich annotation set, and an output schema handling return values, the description's only substantive obligation is to clarify scope — which it does. It could go slightly further by noting whether results are paginated or how visibility is determined, but nothing critical is missing.

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 per the baseline there is nothing for the description to compensate for. No parameter semantics are needed and none are misleadingly implied.

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 ('List ... rooms') plus a scope qualifier ('publicly discoverable'). That scope clause meaningfully separates it from a hypothetical private-room listing and from the join-oriented sibling subscribe_room, though it never names an alternative outright.

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?

The constraint that private rooms are never returned implicitly tells the agent this tool cannot be used to inspect private rooms, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or pointer to a sibling (e.g. subscribe_room for joining, or a private listing path). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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