Matic rooms

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the description's burden is lighter. It adds genuine context beyond them by disclosing the shape of the data — numbered segment groups and user-defined aliases — which matters because there is no output schema to document the return structure.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition and ending with the actionable usage instruction. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the load of explaining what comes back, and it does describe the returned entities and their grouping. It omits finer details like whether results are paginated or the exact field names, but for a zero-arg read-only listing this is close to sufficient.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-related confusion is introduced.

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?

It names the resource (rooms on the robot's map) and explains what a room actually is — a group of numbered segments plus user aliases — which is more than a restated title. The verb is implicit (retrieval/list) rather than stated, but the meaning is unambiguous and it is distinguishable from siblings like matic_map or matic_status.

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 explicitly routes the agent downstream: 'Use these names with matic_start_cleaning.' That gives a clear when-to-use context and names the consumer tool. It does not state exclusions or contrast with alternatives such as matic_map or matic_name_room, so it stops short of a 5.

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