ethora-app-get-default-rooms-with-app-id

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 mentions a read access requirement, which adds some context, but fails to describe other important traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of rooms, pagination). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and a key prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and access requirement but lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at what is returned, but it does not, leaving some context incomplete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'appId' well-documented in the schema as 'appId for app'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, but since the schema already provides adequate coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'default rooms for the application by appId', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'ethora-app-get-default-rooms' (which lacks the 'with-app-id' suffix), leaving some ambiguity about when to use one over the other.

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 provides implied usage guidance by mentioning 'You should have read access to the application', which suggests a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ethora-app-get-default-rooms' or other app-related tools, nor does it outline any exclusions or specific contexts for use.

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