list_worlds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all worlds' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format is (e.g., list of IDs, names, or full objects). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate as it leaves critical behavioral traits undefined.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded to state the core action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick scanning. Every word earns its place, though this brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions.

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 complexity (a list operation in a multi-tool environment), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'worlds' are in this context, how results are returned, or any prerequisites. For a tool that likely returns multiple items, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema has one parameter 'sessionId' with 0% schema description coverage. The description 'List all worlds' doesn't mention any parameters, so it adds no semantic information beyond what the schema provides. However, with only one parameter and baseline expectations for session IDs in such systems, the gap is moderate. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of schema documentation, but the parameter count is low.

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 'List all worlds' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'list_worlds'. It provides the verb 'list' and resource 'worlds', but doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_world', 'create_world', 'delete_world', or 'get_world_state', nor does it specify scope or format. While it minimally states what the tool does, it lacks the specificity needed for clear differentiation.

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. There are multiple sibling tools related to worlds (e.g., 'get_world', 'create_world', 'delete_world', 'get_world_state'), but the description doesn't indicate whether this is for retrieving a summary list versus detailed data, or when filtering might be needed. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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