world

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'management' which implies mutation capabilities (e.g., set_time, set_weather, run_command), but doesn't specify permissions required, side effects, or what happens with invalid inputs. It lists functional areas but doesn't describe how operations interact with the world or players. For a multi-action tool with potential mutations, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient phrase listing key functional areas. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose ('World management'). However, it could be more structured by grouping related actions or indicating primary vs. secondary functions, but it avoids unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, multiple action types including mutations like 'run_command'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively. The schema covers parameters well, but the description fails to compensate for missing context elsewhere.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, enums, and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'action' determines which other parameters are relevant) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'World management: time, weather, environment, day/night cycles, world queries, connections' lists functional areas but lacks a specific verb or clear scope. It mentions 'management' which implies control operations, but doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'execute_command', 'send_message', or 'sequence' which overlap with some of its capabilities. The description is somewhat vague about what exactly this tool does versus others.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'execute_command', 'send_message', and 'sequence' that handle similar actions (e.g., running commands, sending messages, sequencing actions), there's no indication of when this tool's 'action' parameter should be preferred over those dedicated tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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