list_rooms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses the scope (only rooms the avatar has joined) and the output content (room_id + title). For a read-only, zero-parameter listing tool this is adequate, though it omits minor traits like ordering, pagination, and whether the owner room is guaranteed to exist.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output fields; the second adds a practical decision aid without repetition.

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 0-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed, what fields come back, and when to use it. Minor gaps (e.g., behavior when no rooms exist, pagination) are low-stakes for a read-only listing, so nothing critical is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is nothing to document. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed; the description appropriately spends its effort on output and scope instead.

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 uses a specific verb (列出/list) and resource (all Matrix rooms this avatar has joined), and explicitly states the returned fields (room_id + title). The scope '本分身已加入' clearly separates it from per-room siblings like room_info and room_members, so an agent can tell them apart without opening another schema.

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 provides a concrete usage scenario: when unsure which room to reply to, use this tool to locate the owner's private chat room. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., room_info for a single room's details), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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