listWorlds

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It states a read-only listing operation but does not describe the return format (e.g., names, IDs, full objects), ordering, pagination, or any side effects. The agent is left without crucial behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the core action and resource.

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?

The description is functionally adequate for a simple list tool, but without an output schema, it does not explain what the response contains. Adding return format details (e.g., world names vs. full world objects) would make it more 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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter details because none exist, so the baseline of 4 applies. No further compensation is required.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('all created worlds'), which differentiates it from siblings like listHeroes (heroes) and getWorldState (world state). It is unambiguous and immediately understood.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, preconditions, or which sibling tools to prefer for similar tasks. The context of siblings like exportWorld or getWorldState is not addressed.

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