get_world

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral load; "List" implies a non-destructive read, which is the main signal. It says nothing about cost, latency, or whether the payload is a live snapshot versus cached state, which matters for a world-state dump that could be large.

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; every word names content the caller gets back. It is dense but readable, though the bare comma list could be grouped more clearly.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema that already documents the return shape, the description covers what matters: that this is a read of all world-level entities. The main gap is the absence of any routing hint versus sibling inspection tools, which is a minor omission at this 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies the call needs no arguments to scope the query.

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 uses a specific verb ("List") and enumerates the resources returned: surfaces, sandbox surfaces, players, forces and simulation state. An agent can tell this is a whole-world snapshot read. It stops short of distinguishing itself from overlapping siblings such as `observe` or `get_agent_status`.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives like `observe` or `inspect_entity`, both of which may return overlapping state. The enumerated contents only weakly imply that this is the general-purpose overview call.

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