tomo_get_room

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 clearly indicates a read operation (not destructive), but it lacks detail on what happens if the room is not found, whether it returns errors, or if there are any side effects. The description adds some clarity about what is read but omits other behavioral nuances.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the action ('read') and lists the key objects (status, peer count, connection details). There is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient for its length.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description is thin. It names the informational content but does not clarify the output structure (e.g., data types, formats, or error handling). For a read operation, this might be sufficient, but more detail on the return would improve completeness.

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?

With only one parameter (roomId) and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It implies the roomId is necessary to identify the room but does not explain the format (e.g., UUID, string) or validity constraints, which could be an issue since the schema only says 'type: string'. Given the simplicity, a baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description at least ties the parameter to its purpose.

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 that the tool reads a room's status, peer count, and browser connection details, which conveys a specific read operation on a room resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create/control/delete but does not explicitly contrast with other read tools such as tomo_list_rooms, missing some differentiation.

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 implies usage for checking the status of a single room, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus tomo_list_rooms, which might also return room statuses. There is no mention of prerequisites or context such as needing the room to exist.

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