查询会议室

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It identifies the operation as a query ('查询'), implying a safe read-only action, and lists filterable fields. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default result size, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic query nature.

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 is a single concise sentence (two in Chinese) that efficiently conveys the core purpose and main filters. There is no wasted wording, and it is front-loaded with the main action.

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 query tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description plus 100% schema coverage is mostly sufficient. It clearly indicates a list result and the main filter criteria, though it omits mention of pagination parameters (current/size) which are present in the schema. This is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates some parameter purposes (name, capacity, building) without adding new semantic meaning or clarifying nuances like 'capacity' meaning minimum capacity. No value is added beyond the schema.

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 '查询会议室列表' (query meeting room list), specifying the verb and resource. It also mentions filters, which distinguishes it as a list/search operation from detail retrieval. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like get_room_detail.

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 implies usage for listing meeting rooms with filters, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_office or get_room_detail. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative references.

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