Get Room Member Count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the prerequisite (bot must be a member) but does not mention error conditions, response format, or any side effects. Since it's a simple read operation, the lack of detail is a minor gap, but it could have been more explicit about being read-only or about failure cases.

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 zero redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite follows immediately. Every word earns its 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?

For a simple read with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the target resource, and a key precondition. It could mention the return type (integer count) or error behavior, but these are largely implicit. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call 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 input schema already documents roomId with 'LINE Room ID (starts with "R")', so the schema provides full coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Get' and the resource 'the number of members in a LINE multi-person chat room', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_group_member_count (for groups) and get_room_member_ids (for IDs). The condition that the bot must be a member adds specificity.

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 provides clear context: the tool is for LINE multi-person chat rooms, and the bot must be a member. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous, and the prerequisite is stated. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' criterion.

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