List worlds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that results are scoped to the authenticated user and include ids, which is useful. However, it does not describe the response format, ordering, or whether full world objects are returned, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a zero-parameter read-only tool.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('List all worlds...') followed by a succinct usage callout. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter list tool, the description is complete enough. It mentions that the output contains ids and that this tool is the entry point for other tools needing a world_id. While no output schema exists, the description gives a reasonable expectation of return content without over-specifying.

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?

There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the tool takes no input and focuses on the output, which adds minimal but sufficient contextual meaning.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List all worlds owned by (or shared with) the authenticated user' and specifies that the result includes their ids. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_world (single world) and list_articles (articles within a world).

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?

The description explicitly identifies when to use the tool: 'Usually the first call in a session — most other tools need a world_id from here.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the chaining purpose is clearly conveyed.

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