wm_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what data is returned, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that presumably queries status/metrics.

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, which is concise, but it is essentially just a title. It fails to provide any explanatory value beyond what the name already implies, so while there is no waste, it does not earn its place as a meaningful description.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description should clarify what specific status/metrics are included and what makes it unique. It does not, leaving the tool's functionality and scope ambiguous.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty property set). Per the rubric, the baseline is 4 even if the description adds no parameter details, which is the case here.

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' indicates the tool provides status and metrics about the world model, but it lacks a clear verb and does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_metrics or get_system_status. It's a noun phrase rather than a specific action or resource scope.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_metrics, get_system_status, and wm_surprise, the description does not state any distinguishing conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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