agora_world_builder_plots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says only that plots are "persistent" and returns "runtime states" but does not disclose the read-only nature explicitly, whether results are scoped or paginated, or any authorization requirements. Minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized for a no-parameter listing tool. It is efficient, though its brevity is also what leaves the purpose underspecified.

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?

An output schema exists and no parameters are required, so the description does not need to document return values. Still, as an unannotated tool in a crowded sibling namespace, it fails to explain what a WorldPlot or "runtime state" is or how it relates to observe_world, leaving the agent with an avoidable ambiguity.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema confirms an empty object with 100% coverage, leaving no semantic gap to fill.

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 clear verb ("List") and resource ("WorldPlots and runtime states"), so the basic purpose is legible. However, it offers no differentiation from related siblings such as agora_observe_world or agora_world_pulse, and the term "runtime states" is left undefined, so an agent cannot confidently tell which tool to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what the alternatives are. In a sibling set containing observe_world and world_pulse, that omission is a real gap, though the tool's read-only listing nature is at least implied.

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