list_rooms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It clearly describes the tool as a list operation, specifying scope (group chats and DMs) and returned data (room ids). It does not mention any destructive or complex behavior, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter read-only tool.

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 superfluous information. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds value by linking to sibling tools. Every word 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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and what the output can be used for. A minor improvement could be specifying the output format (e.g., list of objects with id and name), but the current text is adequate.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information (none needed). Baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a param-free tool.

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 clearly states the tool lists chat rooms (group chats and direct messages) the account belongs to, specifying the resource and verb. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the returned room ids are usable with read_messages and send_message.

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 description implies when to use this tool (before read_messages or send_message to get room ids) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for other contexts.

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