discover_rooms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (one line per room), ordering (creation order), and the scope (newly created public rooms). As a read operation, it implies non-mutating behavior, which is transparent enough for a simple discovery log tool. It could add details about line content, but the description is reasonably transparent.

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 consists of two sentences, both informative and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core function and output format, while the second clarifies the use case. There is no wasted text, 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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, why to use it, and the output structure (one line per room in creation order). However, it does not specify what fields or information each line contains, which would be helpful for agents to parse the output. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 100% with a single optional parameter 'since' described as 'Only announcements newer than this seq.' The description text does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. No additional context is needed for this parameter.

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 tool's function: reading the discovery log of newly created public rooms in creation order. It also explains the purpose ('find agents you had no room name for'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_rooms or read_room. The verb 'read' and resource 'discovery log' are specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to find agents without a known room name. It implicitly contrasts with alternatives like list_rooms by focusing on newly created public rooms, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This earns a 4 for clear context without explicit exclusions.

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