wm_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what metrics are included, latency expectations, or any side effects. 'Status & Metrics' merely names the output categories without behavioral detail.

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 at five words, which is efficient, but it sacrifices informativeness. It acts as a heading rather than a description, leaving significant gaps without being overly verbose.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a generic description, the tool's functionality remains underspecified. The description does not clarify what specific status and metrics are provided, nor does it set expectations about read-only semantics or formatting.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter usage. According to the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not mislead or conflict with the schema.

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 Model Status & Metrics' identifies the resource (World Model) and general function (status/metrics), but it lacks a verb and reads more like a title than a description. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_metrics, tcai_metrics, or get_system_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With several sibling tools that also expose status or metrics, the absence of any contextual direction makes it unclear which tool is appropriate.

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