Worlds

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety burden is light; the description still adds real context by decoding dayTime values (0 sunrise, 6000 noon, 13000 night, 18000 midnight) and spelling out what each include section contains. It omits what happens on an unknown world name or whether listing is filtered by permission, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

It is dense but well ordered: default single-world fields first, then the no-argument list mode, then the opt-in include extras. The long field enumeration is justified because no output schema exists, though the single-sentence colon chain is heavy to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so in detail, including the shape divergence between single-world and all-worlds calls. It lacks any note on failure modes (unknown world) or how much is returned for very large include sets, which is the only real remaining gap for a 2-parameter read tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the dayTime encoding for the returned field and expands each bare enum value ('rules', 'size', 'respawn') into a concrete list of sub-fields such as spawnProtection, respawnRadius, and explored area in km². Only the 'size' units and the world-key format are left where the schema already had them.

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 makes clear this is a read of world state and enumerates exactly what is returned (time of day, weather, difficulty, border, gamerules), plus the two modes: single world vs 'every loaded world with its dimension key and player count'. It does not name the counterpart mutation tool set_world/save_worlds to sharpen the distinction, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

'Without world, every loaded world with its dimension key and player count' implies the list vs detail choice, so parameter-driven usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings such as set_world or get_server_status, and no stated prerequisites or error behavior when a world name is invalid.

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