read_project_worldbook

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. It explicitly labels the operation as 'Read' and states it 'never creates a worldbook', making the non-mutating nature clear. It also mentions the prerequisite of local mapping configuration, adding useful behavioral context beyond a simple 'read' label.

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, with the first sentence stating the action and scope, and the second adding a key constraint. There is no filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 purpose, a prerequisite, and non-mutating behavior, and an output schema exists to handle return values. However, it lacks any guidance on the two optional parameters, leaving users to guess at their semantics. This is a minimum viable description with clear gaps around parameter usage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not describe what max_entries or max_content_chars control, nor how they affect the output. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic meaning, so it fails to offset the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('project's configured worldbook') and immediately clarifies that it operates without a world_info_id, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_worldbook or list_worldbook_entries. It states exactly what the tool does in one sentence.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you have a project_id and want the project's worldbook entries without needing a world_info_id. It also provides a prerequisite (configure the project mapping locally first) and an explicit exclusion (never creates a worldbook), giving clear usage context even though no alternative sibling tool is named directly.

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