list_murals_in_room

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the operation is to list murals but does not explicitly say it is a read-only operation, nor does it describe pagination behavior (e.g., how next_token is used to fetch more results), ordering, or error conditions. The description is minimal and leaves significant behavioral assumptions to the agent.

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 brief and front-loaded: the first line states the purpose, followed by a clean, structured Args section. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple list tool with an output schema and all parameters documented, the description is adequate but minimal. It omits usage context (versus get_mural), explicit read-only behavior, and pagination mechanics. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral details like how next_token works are missing. Overall, it meets the minimum viable bar but has clear gaps.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: room_id as 'The room ID (integer)', limit as 'Max results to return', and next_token as 'Pagination token from a previous response'. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema types.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'List murals in a room.' This uses a specific verb with a resource and scope, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_rooms or get_mural. The name and description align perfectly.

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 the context ('in a room') but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_mural for a single mural. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references. The intended usage is implied by the name and argument, but not clearly stated.

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