get-world-info

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states READ-ONLY, explains that no write tool exists, and details the limitation of the bridge user being an ASSISTANT with role restrictions. This goes beyond mere read-only claim by explaining why and the alternative. This is rich context given no annotations.

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 paragraph of moderate length. It front-loads the core purpose and then explains the read-only nature and alternative. The sentence about the setup route is somewhat tangential but adds essential context. It could be slightly tighter, but is appropriately succinct for a tool with no parameters.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for a simple read-only tool. It covers the purpose, the read-only limitation, and the reason for that limitation. The agent can call it without further clarification. No missing details that would affect usage.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage implies no need for parameter descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying what the tool returns (world description and background path), which aids the agent in understanding the result even though parameters are trivial. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 it retrieves basic world information, including world description (HTML) and join-page background path. It is distinct from siblings as it is a read-only metadata tool, though the name already implies this. Sibling differentiation is implicit via the read-only note, but not explicitly naming alternatives.

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 context on when to use it: when you need world metadata, and clarifies it is read-only. It also mentions an alternative write path (the editWorld route) but that requires GAMEMASTER role)Skip. It does not explicitly say 'when not to use' but the read-only note implies not for editing.

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