room_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the operation retrieves readable info and defines the default behavior when chat_id is omitted, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, what happens on invalid room IDs, or any permission requirements — gaps that matter for a tool with zero 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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the tool's purpose and outputs, the second gives the use case and default behavior. Critical information is front-loaded.

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 getter with one optional parameter, the description is mostly complete: it lists return fields, the use case, and the fallback behavior. Since there is no output schema, describing the expected fields is important and done here. Minor omissions around error/not-found behavior prevent a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that 'recent conversation' specifically means the most recently forwarded room, and by explaining why chat_id is optional in terms of the mapping use case.

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 specifies a clear verb ('获取' / get) and resource ('指定 Matrix 房间'), and lists the exact data returned (name, topic, member nicknames and IDs). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as list_rooms or room_members, but the resource scope and output fields are specific enough to distinguish it without opening the 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?

The description states a concrete use case: configuring and checking the 'room ID ↔ name' mapping. It also explains the optional chat_id behavior (fallback to the most recently forwarded room), which guides when to call the tool without an argument. No alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned, hence not a 5.

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