World status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly discloses the three checks (reachability, analysis layer, world loaded) and the additional function of listing accepted object type names. It does not state return format or error behavior, but for a status tool the described behavior is reasonably transparent and not contradicted by any annotation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first describes the status checks, the second mentions the object type names and provides usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a sufficient overview of its role and the kind of information it returns. It explains usefulness ('Start here when anything fails') and lists a key output (object type names). It could be even more explicit about the exact structure of the status response, but overall it is complete for operational context.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; it instead focuses on what the tool reports, which is appropriate. There is no parameter-related information missing.

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 that the tool checks reachability of LegendsViewer, the availability of the analysis layer, and the currently loaded world. It also mentions listing object type names, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that load or summarize worlds or search objects. The verb is implied but the resource and scope are specific.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with 'Start here when anything fails', positioning the tool as a first diagnostic step. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare it to alternatives, but the phrase 'Start here' strongly implies it is the entry point before using other tools.

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