get_room_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'full room configuration, settings, and recent events', which gives some insight into output behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent—leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the bullet-point-like examples enhance readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 read-only tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete—it covers purpose, usage, and output scope. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on error cases or response structure, slightly limiting completeness for an agent.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'room_id' refers to 'a specific room ID' and implies it's required for fetching details, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify the format or constraints of the ID (e.g., numeric vs. alphanumeric).

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 the specific action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific Zoom room'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_zoom_rooms (which likely lists multiple rooms) and get_zoom_sites (which focuses on sites rather than individual rooms). The purpose is unambiguous and well-articulated.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you have a specific room ID and need complete details about that single room') and provides concrete examples ('Tell me about room ABC123', 'What are the details of this specific room?'), making it clear this is for single-room queries rather than bulk operations or other contexts handled by siblings.

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