room_local_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this reads from 'cache lokal device' (local device cache) and describes conditional behavior based on room_id and connection state. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, how fresh the cache data is, or potential error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 appropriately sized with three clear sections: purpose statement, usage conditions, and return value. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. The structure is logical with purpose first, then usage guidelines, then parameter/return documentation. Minor improvement could be made by more clearly separating sections.

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 has an output schema (returns JSON string), the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the core purpose, usage scenarios, and parameter behavior adequately. However, as a read operation with no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning data freshness, cache limitations, or error handling to be fully complete for agent decision-making.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds some value by explaining that room_id is optional and describing what happens when it's empty. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap - it doesn't explain the format/type of room_id, validation rules, or provide examples. With 1 parameter at 0% schema coverage, the description adds marginal but incomplete semantic information.

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 verb 'Baca' (Read) and the resource 'snapshot ringkasan room dari cache lokal device ini' (room summary snapshot from local device cache). It distinguishes itself from siblings like room_info or room_list by specifying it reads from local cache rather than fetching from a server. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all potential alternatives like room_info which might fetch remote 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Jika `room_id` kosong dan sedang join room, pakai room saat ini. Jika `room_id` kosong dan sedang offline, kembalikan semua snapshot lokal yang tersedia.' This clearly defines behavior for different scenarios (joined room vs offline) when room_id is empty, helping the agent choose appropriate usage contexts.

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