get_world_net_mode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered and the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context the annotations do not: PIE worlds are not read and the result therefore normally falls back to 'Standalone', which preempts a common misunderstanding.

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 sentences plus a Returns line, all front-loaded with the core purpose first. The enumerated mode strings are repeated implicitly in the Returns block, a minor redundancy, but since there is no output schema the explicit return shape earns its place.

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 no input parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what is needed: the value domain, the return shape, and the PIE caveat. Only the lack of any pointer to sibling net/replication tools keeps it from being fully complete.

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 the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'no parameters', and the only semantic content is about output fields, which is appropriate here.

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 ('Read the net mode of the editor world') and enumerates the exact possible values, so the return domain is unambiguous. It hints at differentiation by scoping to the editor world and excluding PIE, but never names the closest siblings (e.g. get_net_role, get_network_info, get_dedicated_server_status), so sibling routing is left to inference.

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 implies when the tool is applicable (reading the editor world's current net mode) and notes that PIE worlds are not covered, which is a useful scoping caveat. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_net_role or the broader get_network_info/get_replication_info tools, so no explicit alternative guidance is given.

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