get_world_partition_runtime_hash

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the honest failure mode on non-WP maps, the fact that no map swap occurs, and the reason the grid count is often 0 (pre-cook). This is exactly the kind of nuance an agent needs to interpret the result without misreading it.

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 action, then the important caveats, then the return shape. Slightly dense with parenthetical C++ identifiers (UWorldPartitionRuntimeSpatialHash::GetNumGrids) and the emphatic 'REAL read', but every sentence carries information.

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 output schema, the description supplies the return shape (is_world_partition, runtime_hash_type, num_streaming_grids, success, note) and the caveats needed to interpret it. Nothing an agent needs to call and correctly read this no-arg read tool is missing.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies. The description instead spends its words on return semantics, which is the right trade.

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 ('Reads the editor world's World Partition runtime hash') and defines exactly what is reported (runtime hash class, number of generated streaming grids). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the paired set_world_partition_runtime_hash by emphasizing 'no swap is done'.

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?

Provides clear context on when the tool is meaningful vs not — it notes the value is 0 until a cook/build generates the runtime grids and returns is_world_partition=false on a non-WP editor map. It doesn't explicitly route to a sibling (e.g., the set_ variant or get_world_partition_info), but the applicability conditions are clear.

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