room_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Status', 'state', and 'counters' strongly imply a read-only snapshot, but the description does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free behavior or mention prerequisites such as requiring an active room. This is adequate but not explicit.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately lists the key data categories and the scope ('current room'), so every word earns its place.

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 parameterless status tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return categories at a high level and the meaningful context ('current room'). It could additionally explain how the current room is determined or what the counters count, but the information needed to choose and invoke the tool is present.

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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

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 resource (current room) and the data categories returned (connection state, peers, scene counters), making it distinct from room lifecycle and scene mutation siblings. However, it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'gets,' so it stops short of the strongest purpose statement.

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 content implies the tool is for checking the current room's runtime status, but the description never states when to use it or contrasts it with alternatives like read_scene. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, only an inferred use case.

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