get_waiting_room

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' only signals read-only retrieval and gives no information about response shape, error behavior, permissions, or scoping. This is thin for a tool with no output schema.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core resource and specificity are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-resource getter.

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?

Required parameters are fully documented and there are no nested objects, so the basic invocation context is clear. However, with no output schema and a minimal description, an agent cannot anticipate return contents or failure modes, leaving the definition usable but incomplete.

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 input schema already describes both parameters ('The zone ID' and 'The waiting room ID') with 100% coverage, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema does the necessary work here.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('waiting room'), and 'specific' distinguishes this from list-style siblings like list_waiting_rooms. However, it largely restates the tool name and does not name the sibling it should be contrasted with.

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 word 'specific' implies this tool is for retrieving one waiting room rather than listing all of them, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The agent must infer alternatives from sibling names like list_waiting_rooms.

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