spawn_rooms

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 implies a read-only operation (reporting active rooms and player counts) but does not explicitly state this, nor does it mention the return format, side effects, or permission requirements. The name 'spawn_rooms' could also suggest a creation action, creating ambiguity about whether this tool mutates state.

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 extremely brief (one sentence) but under-specified. It front-loads the core subject but omits essential details like the action, output, and usage context. This is more under-specification than effective conciseness.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description must explain what the tool returns and how it behaves. It mentions 'active rooms + player counts' but does not describe the output structure or any edge cases. The lack of usage guidance and behavioral details makes it incomplete for an AI agent to reliably invoke.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents the sole parameter 'projectDir'. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, but baseline is 3 since the schema already covers it. The description's reference to 'current variant' is not linked to the parameter, providing no extra semantic value.

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 'Active rooms + player counts for the current variant' identifies the resource (rooms, player counts) and scope (current variant) but lacks a verb, making the tool's action ambiguous. It could be interpreted as a listing/status query, but it does not explicitly state 'list' or 'get', which limits clarity. It is not a tautology but is vague about the operation being performed.

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 does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling tools list includes many potentially related commands, but no differentiation is made.

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