ktalk_get_room

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

The description discloses a critical side effect: the server always returns 200, creates the room object as a side effect, and this is irreversible (no delete operation). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels at it, warning the agent about a behavior that would otherwise be undiscoverable.

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 well-structured: purpose statement, then a prominent warning block, then the args list. Every sentence contributes vital information, and the critical side-effect warning is front-loaded. Despite its length, there is no redundancy or fluff; it earns its space.

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?

The description covers the purpose, usage constraints, side effects, and parameter details. It references project-specific identifiers (FR-17, ADR-006) that add traceability. Although it doesn't describe the return value, an output schema exists, so that is not required. For a tool with such a subtle and dangerous behavior, this is exceptionally 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% and the schema offers no descriptions, so the description is the only source for parameter meaning. It explains both parameters: room_name is 'path-quoted before the request' and format lists the allowed values 'raw' (JSON) or 'markdown'. This fully compensates for the schema gap and gives the agent actionable detail.

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 explicitly states 'Get room details' and adds a scoping constraint (session mode only), making the operation unambiguous. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by targeting a specific resource (room) rather than participants, recordings, or transcripts.

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 both a when-to-use context (session mode) and an explicit prohibition: 'Do NOT use this tool to check whether a name is available/occupied — the check itself creates the occupancy.' This gives clear guidance on when not to invoke it, which is exactly the type of directive that prevents misuse.

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