world_ready

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 discloses that the tool blocks, has a ceiling, why waiting is necessary, the measured delay window, and the failure mode of sending commands during that window. This is far richer than a generic 'waits until ready' statement.

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?

Longer than average, but every paragraph earns its place: the operational instruction is front-loaded, followed by timing evidence and a rationale for blocking. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

The description covers when, why, and blocking behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The only gap is the timeout parameter's units and expiry behavior, which is a small completeness hole for a tool whose only knob is that parameter.

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 schema has one optional timeout parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must document it. It only indirectly references a 'ceiling' and never names the parameter, states its units, or explains what happens when it expires. The agent can infer seconds from context but not explicitly.

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 opens with a concrete action—'Wait until the bridge inside the game is actually ticking'—and clearly identifies the resource and readiness condition. It also gives explicit sequencing relative to server_start and world commands, distinguishing it from siblings without merely restating the tool name.

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?

It states exactly when to call: after server_start's boot job finishes and before the first world command. It explains why this matters (the 18-38 s gap) and even contrasts with a polling alternative, so an agent knows when this tool is the intended choice.

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