preview_room

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

Declares 'Read-only' upfront and mentions prerequisite 'Requires set_player_metadata.' This covers key behavioral traits despite no annotations. However, it does not mention potential errors or rate limits.

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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with 'Read-only,' and structured logically. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, it adequately describes return values (scenario, layout, occupancy, config) and usage context. Missing error conditions but otherwise complete.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains room_id ('string identifier from list_rooms') but gives no information about connection_id. Only partial parameter meaning added.

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 specifies 'Read-only. Return a room's current state' and enumerates specific components (scenario name, board layout, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by stating usage for previewing before joining, which is distinct from other tools like get_room_state.

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?

Explicitly states use cases: 'inspect a room before joining with join_room' and 'check ready status while waiting for the match to start.' It also identifies the source for room_id. While it doesn't list when not to use, the context is clear enough.

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