Load a world

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

Despite having no annotations, the description discloses significant behavioral traits: it replaces any prior loaded world (side effect), takes about 30 seconds and 800 MB for a large world (performance/resource usage), and automatically picks up the _plus.xml file (implicit behavior). This goes well beyond a generic statement and helps the agent anticipate consequences.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: function, performance/side effect, and file-specific guidance. No wasted words, and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the action, side effects, resource requirements, and file-handling details. The agent knows to call it once before querying and what to expect, so no critical information seems 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 schema only says 'Full path to the <world>-legends.xml file.' The description adds that the _plus.xml beside it is picked up automatically, meaning the path should point only to the -legends.xml file and not the _plus.xml. This enriches the parameter's meaning beyond the schema definition, so the description adds value even with 100% schema coverage.

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 the tool's function: 'Parses a legends export into memory, replacing whatever world was loaded.' The verb 'parses' and the resource 'legends export' are specific, and the mention of replacing the currently loaded world distinguishes it from sibling tools like world_status or world_summary, which clearly operate on an already loaded world.

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 provides clear usage context: 'call it once and query afterwards' indicates this is the initial setup step before using other query tools. It also gives file-specific guidance ('Point it at the -legends.xml file'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so a small deduction from a perfect score.

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