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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the workspace is private and staged, returns a hashed file index with no duplicated source, and expires after 24 hours. The 24-hour expiry and the 'worlds unchanged until save' guarantee are behavior an agent cannot infer from the 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a compact run-through of the workflow, the non-destructive guarantee, the starter rule, and the TTL. Every sentence carries information, though the mid-sentence workflow list ('Read/search files, patch exact text, validate, inspect...') is dense and could be tightened.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description usefully characterizes the return as a hashed file index; annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is the operational link to its siblings: how the required workspaceId is produced, and whether this 'get_' tool also creates a staged workspace for a new world via starter. For an entry-point tool in a large sibling set, that ambiguity matters.

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 0% for 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to 'starter' ('For new worlds choose a Genesis starter') and implicitly contrasts it with the existing-world path, which maps loosely onto liveWorldId vs starter. workspaceId and liveWorldId themselves remain unexplained, and the description doesn't resolve why workspaceId is required if the tool is also used for new worlds.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Open a private staged coding workspace for a Worldstream', plus what it returns ('a file index with hashes'). It also sketches the downstream workflow (read/search, patch, validate, inspect, save), which distinguishes it from read_world_code_file and save_world_code_workspace. However it never names or contrasts the closest sibling, inspect_world_code_workspace, leaving some ambiguity about which of the two to call.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the staging narrative ('Existing worlds remain unchanged until save') tells the agent this is the entry point for staged editing, and 'For new worlds choose a Genesis starter' gives one concrete routing rule. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or any mention of inspect_world_code_workspace, create_workspace, or how a workspaceId is obtained.

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