room_list

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. It states the tool returns a JSON string of room lists, which is useful, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second specifies the return type. There's no wasted text. However, the use of mixed languages (Indonesian and English) might slightly hinder clarity for some agents, preventing a perfect score.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. However, with no annotations and behavioral gaps (e.g., missing auth or rate limit info), it doesn't fully cover the context needed for safe and effective use, especially in a multi-tool environment.

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 0 parameters, with 100% schema description coverage (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Lihat daftar room public yang aktif di Cloudflare' (View list of active public rooms in Cloudflare). It specifies the verb ('lihat'/view), resource ('room public'/public rooms), and scope ('aktif di Cloudflare'/active in Cloudflare). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'room_local_summary' or 'room_info', which prevents a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'room_local_summary' or 'room_info', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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