wm_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Status & Metrics' without clarifying whether the tool is read-only, if it has side effects, or what specific behavior to expect. This is insufficient for a tool with 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 very short (4 words), which is concise, but it sacrifices informativeness. It could include more detail without being verbose, such as listing example metrics. The front-loading is fine, but the content is too sparse.

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?

With no output schema and zero parameters, the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns, but it only says 'Status & Metrics.' This is inadequate for an agent to understand the output format or key data fields, especially given the complexity of a world model.

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 no parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. However, it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the phrase 'Status & Metrics' provides minimal context. Given the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage, this score is appropriate.

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 states 'World Model Status & Metrics,' which indicates the tool provides status and metrics for the world model. However, it is vague, lacking specifics on what kind of status or metrics (e.g., training progress, health). Among sibling tools like get_metrics and get_system_status, it distinguishes by focusing on the world model, but still lacks precision.

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 such as get_metrics or get_system_status. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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