Flecs Get World Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the structured fields: the tool fails outright if the REST API is unreachable, and any return section can be null with a 'notes' field explaining why (e.g. stats module not imported).

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 [READ] tag and the primary action before any detail, which is exactly the right ordering. The bulleted return list is scannable, though it partially restates structure that an output schema already provides, so it earns slightly less than full marks for economy.

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 tool with annotation coverage and an output schema, this is complete: it explains the failure mode, the nullability of each section, and the diagnostic 'notes' field, while leaving return-value shape to the output schema. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret a degraded response.

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 there is no parameter semantics for the description to carry; the 4 baseline applies. Nothing about the empty schema is misrepresented.

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 ('Describe the connected FLECS world') and immediately disambiguates it from siblings by scoping it to the world rather than an entity, component, query, or stats subset. It also fixes its ordinal role ('call it first'), so an agent can place it relative to the other ten tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use rule: call it first, as a connectivity/link test. It does not, however, address overlap with the close sibling flecs_get_world_stats, which appears to surface a subset of the same world_summary counters, and there are no explicit when-not conditions.

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