get_room

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses that the response resolves parent locations (so a Heilbronn room is identifiable as such) and that no TUMonline token is required — an auth fact the annotations do not express.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The parent-location clause is slightly opaque phrasing ('visible as such'), but it still earns its place by explaining return content.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what comes back; it partially does via the parent-inclusion note and the auth remark. It leaves gaps on the `language` parameter's effect on returned names and on `id` format, which matters for a 2-parameter tool with zero schema documentation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It identifies the `id` as a NavigaTUM location id used in the API path, but adds no format or example for it, and the `language` parameter (de/en) is never mentioned in the description at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read one NavigaTUM location from /api/locations/{id}'. The single-record scope is explicit, which implicitly separates it from the sibling search_rooms, but the sibling is never named, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the endpoint path and 'Read one' signal a by-id lookup, and 'No TUMonline token' tells the agent no auth is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative such as search_rooms for discovery.

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