list_rooms

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavior: results are sorted by recent activity, private rooms are never included, and room names/topics are caller-controlled untrusted strings. These details materially affect how an agent should interpret results.

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 deliver the core behavior, an important exclusion, and a security-relevant nuance with no wasted words. The most essential 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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this is complete: it states what is returned (public rooms and topics), the ordering, the exclusion of private rooms, and the trust boundary of room metadata. Nothing essential 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 schema already fully documents the only parameter, `limit`, including its default and clamping behavior. The description adds no extra parameter-level information, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'List public rooms', and adds concrete behavioral details (ordering by recent activity, inclusion of topics). It also distinguishes itself by explicitly excluding private `p-` rooms, which separates it from room-related siblings like read_room or discover_rooms.

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 clearly establishes the tool's scope: public rooms only, ordered by activity. The explicit statement that private `p-` rooms never appear gives a strong when-not signal. However, it does not name alternative tools for private-room operations, so it stops short of a 5.

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