list_rooms

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 and it does not deliver: nothing about visibility/permission scope (are private or unjoined rooms included?), pagination, or ordering. The read-only nature is only inferable from the verb 'List', and return shape is left entirely to the output schema.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than pure economy.

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 output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and there are no parameters to document, which means the low bar is nearly met. What is missing is behavioral context an agent needs to choose this tool correctly: room visibility, relationship to search_room, and any auth requirement.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add; this is the baseline 4 for a no-arg tool with a 100%-coverage empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('rooms') plus the scope extension 'with their members', so an agent knows this is a roster dump rather than a filtered lookup. It does not name or differentiate itself from the nearby search_room or room_metrics siblings, which costs it the top 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 word 'all' implies an unfiltered enumeration, but the description never states when to prefer this over search_room or why you would call it instead of list_participants. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternate-tool routing.

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