List ToolQuest Rooms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces this by stating it does not create or change a run. It also adds behavioral context about the returned room attributes, which goes beyond the annotation metadata. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and return details, and the second sentence usefully clarifies side-effect behavior. Both sentences earn their place.

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?

Given zero params, a rich annotation set, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. It states what the tool does, what it returns, and that it has no side effects.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on return value content rather than parameter details, since there are no inputs to document. The schema's 100% coverage further removes any ambiguity.

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 ('Discover') and a specific resource ('all built-in rooms'), and enumerates the attributes returned (IDs, versions, difficulty, introductions, par action counts). It is distinct from run-oriented siblings like start_run or get_run, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from exploration tools like look or inspect.

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 phrasing 'Discover all built-in rooms' implies a list/exploration use case, and the note 'This does not create or change a run' implies safe use without side effects. However, it does not state when to prefer this over siblings such as look or inspect, nor does it provide explicit conditions or alternatives.

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