spawn_rooms

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return content (active rooms and player counts), the target room for exec/logs, and what an empty list implies, plus that spawn_client_join makes a body appear. It does not cover permissions, side effects beyond the empty-list case, or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the returned data; the second handles the empty-list case and routing to spawn_client_join. Slightly compressed grammar ('the room exec/logs will target') costs it a point.

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 simple read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the return concept and a key empty-state behavior. It leaves the room object structure implicit, but an agent can still invoke it correctly.

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 schema fully documents projectDir, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but none is needed for this simple optional path parameter.

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 names the resource (rooms), key attributes (player counts), variant scope, and relation to exec/logs targeting, so the agent can infer this is a listing tool. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'List' and does not fully contrast with all siblings, but it is clear.

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?

It gives a specific edge case: if the list is empty, use spawn_client_join to boot a room. It does not state when to call spawn_rooms versus other status/play tools, nor does it list exclusions, leaving broad usage implied.

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