sprut_list_rooms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only partially discharges it. 'List all rooms' implies a non-destructive read over the entire room set, which is useful, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, size limits, or the freshness of the returned sensor summary.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, scope, and returned fields are all packed into one line. Nothing in it 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?

For a parameterless read tool with an output schema already defining the return shape, the description covers what the agent needs to call it correctly. The only gap is the lack of any routing signal against the many sibling list/get tools.

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 no parameter semantics to convey. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing filter syntax that the schema does not support.

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 and resource ('List all rooms in the smart home') plus the fields returned, so the agent immediately knows what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as sprut_get_summary or sprut_list_devices, which could also surface room/sensor data.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The exhaustive scope ('all rooms') is mentioned, but nothing tells the agent how this differs from sprut_get_summary or when listing rooms is preferable to fetching a device or room individually.

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