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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It gives a useful inventory of the data returned and 'get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it describe the response format or any dynamic/cached 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?

The description is a compact, front-loaded list with no filler. It could have used a verb such as 'Returns' to read as a proper sentence, but it earns its place and avoids redundancy with the title.

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 zero-parameter getter, the description is mostly adequate, but the absence of an output schema means the return structure is not clear. It also does not explain what 'current limits' means or how active builders are counted, leaving minor ambiguity for an agent.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to document. The phrase 'world stats' and the listed data categories are sufficient context for an agent to understand the scope.

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 enumerates the specific contents returned: total cubes, per-block counts, active builders, world bounds, and current limits. The title supplies the verb+object, making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named get_overview sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_overview or the other getter siblings. The description merely lists outputs and leaves selection entirely to inference from the name.

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