world_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it performs read-only operations (revalidates via entget), reads tags and journal, and reports results. It explains the liveness test and mentions manual GUI edits. It does not state side effects (likely none) but is largely transparent.

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?

Description is compact, information-dense, and front-loaded with a question that summarizes the purpose. Each sentence adds meaningful detail without fluff.

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?

The description covers input, processing, and output categories. It's sufficient for an expert to understand behavior. No need to explain return values due to output schema. Minor gaps: prerequisites like memory enablement, but not critical.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema is trivially covered. Description explains what data the tool reads (tags, journal) without needing to describe parameters. No extra parameter meaning needed.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it reads semantic tags and the autonomous journal, revalidates handles, and reports roles alive/dead, events, and newcomers. It distinguishes itself from sibling report tools by focusing on memory validity and change tracking.

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 implies usage for checking drawing state and memory truth, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like drawing_info or contact_report, nor any exclusions.

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