wm_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only offers a heading-like phrase. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what data is returned, whether a running simulation is required, or any side effects, offering essentially no behavioral transparency.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise in a useful way. It is a fragment with no sentence structure or additional context, and it does not earn its place given the ambiguity it leaves unresolved.

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 a large sibling set with overlapping names (get_metrics, get_system_status, tcai_metrics, etc.), this description is insufficient to guide tool selection. There is no output schema or annotations to compensate, so the agent has very little information to choose correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered. The description cannot add parameter meaning beyond the empty schema, and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related information is needed or missing.

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 names the resource ('World Model') and broadly mentions 'Status & Metrics,' but lacks a verb and specific scope. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like get_metrics, get_system_status, or tcai_metrics, making it a vague phrase rather than a clear action statement.

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. It does not describe typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for selection among many similar status/metrics tools.

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