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 the returned fields in detail, which is genuine behavioral context given there is no output schema, and the field list implies a non-mutating status read. However, it says nothing about permissions, side effects, or whether the read is cached/polling-based.

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?

It is a single run-on sentence built as a comma-separated list of return fields, with the purpose never front-loaded. The structure reads like an output schema dumped into prose rather than a definition an agent can scan.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description reasonably serves as the return-value documentation and covers the fields fairly comprehensively. What it omits is the framing an agent needs: what the tool is for, when to call it, and how it relates to the many sibling room/scene tools.

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 semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misrepresents the (empty) input contract.

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 enumerates the data the tool reports (connection state, handles, radius, policy, peers, counters), which implies a 'get current room status' purpose, but it never states a verb or a single summarizing clause. It does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like show_room, poll_room, or read_scene.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over show_room, poll_room, or list_mentions. The agent is left to infer the use case purely from the field list.

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