room_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: what it reports ('whether the page acknowledged it, whether the mic is open and whether a tab is even connected') and the meaning of the key field `page_problem` (names the reason the room won't work, or null when healthy). This goes beyond a simple 'inspect' and gives diagnostic context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function, the second paragraph gives when to use it, and the third explains the most important field. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition.

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?

This is a simple read-only diagnostic tool with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description explains the use case, the kinds of information returned, and the meaning of the key field. It does not need to detail return values since an output schema exists. Minor gaps like not naming sibling alternatives are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 only parameter `events` is fully documented in the schema with 'Recent log lines to include.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional semantic detail about the parameter beyond the schema, so no extra credit.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Inspect the interview room: state, page health, and a timestamped log.' This is a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('interview room'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'probe' or 'progress', so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives strong usage guidance: 'Use this the moment anything looks wrong — silence, a stall, an answer that never arrived.' It also explains the benefit over asking the candidate: 'diagnose without asking the candidate what they see on screen.' This is clear context, though it does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools.

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