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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it specifies what 'captured flags, arguments, value shapes, availability, risk, release metadata, and official source links' are included, and notes the input can be a stable id or full command path. This enriches behavioral understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 fluff. The first sentence is the core functional statement, and the second sentence adds input flexibility. It is front-loaded, concise, and every word contributes.

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 only two simple parameters, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the tool's purpose, output contents, and input flexibility. The only gap is the absence of explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but this does not significantly hinder understanding for a simple 'get' operation.

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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds meaningful semantics for the 'command' parameter by stating it accepts 'a stable id or full command path'. The 'product' parameter is self-explanatory through its enum values. This compensates reasonably well for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool returns 'one current command path' with detailed contents (flags, arguments, risk, etc.), using a specific verb ('Return') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like worlds_get_cli_workflow and worlds_search_cli_reference by focusing on a single command's full metadata.

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 intended use is implied—get a single command's details by id or path—but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like worlds_search_cli_reference for searching or worlds_get_cli_workflow for workflows. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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