Load current playable context

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true indicates the tool is read-only, and the description does not contradict this (annotation_contradiction=false). The description adds behavioral context about what data is loaded (world framing, scene details), which goes beyond the annotation, but it does not disclose potential performance implications or the exact structure of the returned context. Given the read-only annotation, the bar is lowered, but the description could add more depth about the returned data.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a usage hint. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool is a read-only context loader with a relatively simple input schema (one required param, one optional boolean), the description is fairly complete. It indicates the type of information returned (framing, scene, location, characters, plots) and the usage context. However, it does not explain the behavior of includeSecrets (e.g., whether it loads hidden plots or character secrets), which could be important for correct invocation. There is no output schema, but the description partially compensates by listing the content types. Minor gaps remain, but overall it is sufficient.

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 input schema covers half of the parameters: worldId is described as a numeric ID from list_worlds or create_world, with exclusiveMinimum and maximum. However, includeSecrets lacks a description. The tool description does not explicitly explain the parameters, but given the 50% schema coverage, the description adds some context by implying that the loaded context might include secrets (from the parameter name). The description partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 identifies the tool as loading world framing, current scene, location, characters, and plots, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the compact overview and from siblings like get_world_overview and get_recent_events by focusing on the current playable context.

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 includes a clear usage hint: 'Use after the compact overview when continuing play.' This provides context for when to call the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It effectively instructs on the intended sequencing.

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