mempalace_list_rooms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to re-state safety. It adds meaningful context about tenant scoping, active drawer counts, and the ability to narrow by wing or aggregate, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the action, resource, and scope without fluff.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the scope, the content (rooms and drawer counts), and the optional filtering/aggregation behavior, leaving no significant gaps.

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 covers 100% of the parameter documentation, describing 'wing' as optional and explaining the aggregation behavior. The description largely mirrors this without adding new semantics (e.g., format, enums, or edge cases), so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tenant-scoped rooms and active drawer counts'), with an explicit scope ('for one wing or across all wings'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mempalace_list_wings and mempalace_list_drawers.

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 clear usage context by explaining the optional 'wing' parameter and the aggregating behavior when omitted. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when to use this tool.

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