agent_room_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not describe read-only nature, side effects, authorization needs, or return format. The '[L:READ]' prefix is ambiguous and insufficient.

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 very short but lacks substance; it consists of a cryptic prefix and a prerequisite. It is concise but at the cost of clarity and completeness, with no front-loading of the tool's purpose.

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 tool with 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's function, return value, or any behavioral context beyond the prerequisite.

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 100% with descriptions for both 'limit' and 'roomId'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 lacks an explicit verb+resource statement; it only provides metadata ('[L:READ] CAT:[系统]') and a prerequisite. The tool's purpose is vaguely implied by the name 'agent_room_view' and schema parameters (roomId, limit), but not stated.

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 includes a clear prerequisite: '→ 请先调用 agent_catalog', instructing the agent to call agent_catalog first. This provides context, but no when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., agent_room_send) or when-not-to-use guidance.

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