get_world_partition_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies this is a 'REAL read' and that returning is_world_partition_enabled=false on a non-WP map is the correct result, not an error — preventing a false-negative interpretation.

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 core purpose, then the key behavioral caveat, then the return shape. Tight and waste-free, with only the slightly odd 'REAL read' emphasis as minor noise.

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-arg read-only getter, the definition covers purpose, applicability, edge-case behavior, and return fields, so an agent has what it needs. The absence of an output schema is largely compensated by the inline return-shape listing.

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 schema carries nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste words on nonexistent inputs.

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 ('reads') and resource ('editor world's World Partition state'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, name or contrast with siblings like get_world_partition_runtime_hash or list_world_partition_actors, so differentiation must be inferred.

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?

'Works on any map' implies the scope of applicability, which is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative guidance nor any exclusions relative to the other World Partition tools. Usage is only implied.

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