room_act

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool simulates the candidate's actions, is intended for testing not cheating, and warns against real-interview misuse. It does not detail all side effects, but the concrete flow mentioned ('press Start, submit an answer, confirm the loop advances') gives a useful behavioral picture.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second clarifies its testing-only nature, and the third adds a concrete example and an ethical guardrail. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description is complete enough for a testing tool: it explains the purpose, the ethical boundary, and a typical flow. The schema covers parameter details and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. It does not explicitly mention the open_mic and ack_speech actions, but those are already described in the schema.

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 100% and the schema already explains each action value and the text parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, only restating the 'submit an answer' concept generically.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource combination: 'Drive the room as if you were the candidate.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing the testing-only, candidate-impersonation role, and enumerates concrete actions like pressing Start and submitting an answer.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('rehearse or diagnose the whole flow') and when not to ('During a real interview, don't answer on the candidate's behalf'). It lacks a named alternative tool, but the context is clear enough to avoid misuse.

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