omni_worlds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does reveal the key non-obvious trait: the output depends on runtime state (full list vs. running world with a note). This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs to know in advance. It falls short of a 5 only because it doesn't describe what the note contains or the shape of the returned list.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The core action ('List saved worlds') is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently states the qualifying behavioral condition. Every word earns its place.

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 0-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential gotcha — the conditional output depending on whether a world is running. The only real gaps are the unspecified content of the 'note' and the output format, both minor given the tool's low complexity.

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 tool has 0 parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. Per the rubric, the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and a concrete resource ('saved worlds'), and the conditional clause adds a distinctive behavioral detail that separates it from world-management siblings like omni_world_enter, omni_world_scan, and omni_world_create. It is clear and unambiguous, but it doesn't explicitly name or contrast any sibling, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 conditional statement gives useful operational context — the full list is available only when no world is running, otherwise the result is limited to the running world — which helps an agent know what to expect. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like omni_orld_scan or omni_state, nor does it give any 'when not to use' guidance.

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