control_lobby

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies read-only state inspection by listing returned status fields, but it does not explicitly state that the call has no side effects, whether the data is live or cached, or any auth/rate-limit constraints.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the returned state fields and add the timing note afterward. 'Raw HS status bytes' is efficient but opaque, which slightly reduces clarity without adding unnecessary length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey return-value meaning; it does enumerate the main fields an agent should expect. It leaves the exact response shape and interpretation of raw HS status bytes implicit, but for a zero-parameter state getter this is largely sufficient.

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 zero parameters, so there are no argument semantics for the description to add. The zero-parameter baseline applies.

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 names a specific resource, 'Room/prep-screen state,' and enumerates returned status fields such as our seat, host flag, both-seat readiness, deck loaded, and raw HS status bytes. It distinguishes its timing from control_ready/control_start, though it does not clarify how it differs from sibling state readers like control_state or control_health.

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?

It gives explicit timing guidance: 'Use this before ready/start,' which tells an agent when to call it. However, it does not state when not to use it or explicitly compare it with other state-checking siblings.

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