List LINE rooms

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying result contents and warning that index values shift when rooms reorder.

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 two compact sentences with no fluff. The first states the purpose, and the second delivers a practically important stability warning without repeating schema or annotation information.

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?

With an output schema, fully described parameters, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description only needs to add operational context. It supplies the essential guidance: result contents, stable identifiers to pass to other tools, and reorder risk.

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%, with query and unread_only each having clear descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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 opens with 'List chat rooms with unread counts and last-message preview,' naming a specific verb, resource, and expected output fields. This clearly distinguishes it from message-level siblings like get_messages and search_messages.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use list_rooms versus alternatives like unread_digest or unread_full. The second paragraph gives useful cross-tool guidance about preferring data-mid or name, but selection among sibling tools is still left to inference.

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