consultar_habitaciones

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, if it requires specific permissions, or if there are rate limits. The 'Returns' section adds some context about output format, but overall behavioral traits are underspecified for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one detailing the return format. It's front-loaded with the main action. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for the return details.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the return format, but lacks context on usage versus siblings and behavioral details like safety or permissions. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate, but the output schema reduces the burden.

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 has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately focuses on output. The 'Returns' section adds semantic value by specifying the output includes room names and device counts by type, which is helpful beyond what the output schema might provide.

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's purpose: 'Obtiene la lista completa de habitaciones con su información' (Gets the complete list of rooms with their information). It specifies the verb 'obtiene' (gets) and the resource 'habitaciones' (rooms). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'consultar_habitacion' (consult room), which likely retrieves a single room rather than the complete list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tools like 'consultar_habitacion' for single-room queries or 'agregar_habitacion' for adding rooms. There's no context about prerequisites, such as authentication or system state requirements.

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