get_room_exits

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. While it implies a read operation ('Get'), it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'all exits' entails (e.g., format, completeness). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient, scoring above 1 only due to the implied read nature.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides crucial sibling differentiation. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 50% schema coverage, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers purpose and sibling differentiation well, but lacks behavioral details and parameter explanations, making it minimally viable for a simple read tool.

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 description coverage is 50% (only 'roomId' is described in the schema). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, failing to compensate for the undocumented 'sessionId'. With partial schema coverage and no additional param details in the description, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all exits from a room'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'look_at_surroundings' by noting that the sibling provides perception-filtered exits. This precise differentiation earns the highest score.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'Use look_at_surroundings for perception-filtered exits.' This directly addresses sibling tool differentiation and usage context, meeting the criteria for a top score.

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