get_world

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read ('Get') but says nothing about required permissions, whether it touches the filesystem, what happens with a malformed or missing level.dat, or the shape of the returned info.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the key operation front-loaded. It's terse but not padded; the brevity only hurts because content is missing, not because of verbosity.

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 two-required-param tool with zero schema documentation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much undefined: what 'info' means, how instance and world interact, and failure behavior.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It alludes to a 'folder name' matching only the world param and never explains the required instance parameter or the relationship between the two.

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: retrieve a single world's level.dat info. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_worlds, though the 'by folder name' phrasing doesn't map cleanly onto the two required params (instance and world), leaving some ambiguity about what identifies the 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?

No indication of when to use this versus list_worlds or get_instance, and no prerequisites or error conditions (e.g., what happens if the world folder doesn't exist). The agent must infer context from the name alone.

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