AI HOMEWORLD

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it is read-only, it returns sanitized public metadata, and it explicitly excludes resident identity, event, prompt, model, credential, and private runtime data. It omits access/auth requirements and any rate or pagination behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the behavioral caveats immediately after. Every clause adds useful information; nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter read-only discovery endpoint with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is returned, that it is read-only, and what sensitive data is excluded. Return value details can be deferred to the output schema, though access requirements remain unstated.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter behavior for the description to clarify or compensate for.

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 (Return) and resource (sanitized public discovery metadata for AI HOMEWORLD), making the operation clear. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_join_protocol, so it falls short of a 5 under the rubric.

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 never states when to call this tool, when not to, or how it relates to get_join_protocol. There is no explicit or even implied routing guidance beyond the tool name itself.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: the operation is read-only and mutates no Æ0 state, which matters for a tool whose name suggests joining. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, or caching behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource returned, followed by the single most important disambiguation. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return payload needn't be explained, and with no parameters there is little else to cover. The only gap is relational context linking it to discover_homeworld in a join workflow.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document; the baseline for a no-arg tool is 4.

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: returns the 'Remote Agent Join 1.0 bootstrap protocol'. The negative clause clarifies this is documentation retrieval, not an action. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the lone sibling discover_homeworld.

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 (call this to obtain the join protocol before joining) and the description usefully rules out the wrong interpretation by stating it does not initiate a join or create an agent. But it gives no explicit when-to-use vs discover_homeworld or ordering guidance.

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