mesh_rooms

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

Annotations provided none, so the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses it's a local, non-blocking read, which is helpful. However, it doesn't describe the output format or any limitations (e.g., what 'participants seen so far' implies) beyond that, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 dense sentence that packs multiple categories (rooms, public rooms, rings) but is well-structured with 'plus' connectors. It's informative without being redundant, though slightly long.

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?

It tells you what the output covers and that it's safe (local, non-blocking), but lacks details on the actual result format or how to interpret counts like 'how many facts arrived.' It doesn't explicitly compare to related tools, so an agent may not know exactly when to use this over a more specific tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for an agent to misunderstand. The description doesn't need to clarify parameter usage because none exist.

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 what the tool returns: rooms the agent is in, public rooms announced but not joined, and pending rings. It implies a status/listing purpose but doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it's clear but not differentiated from tools like mesh_list_stations or mesh_agents.

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 states 'Instant, a local read, never blocks,' which suggests it's for quick status checks, but there's no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like mesh_wait_room or mesh_list_stations. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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