wp_get_world_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully declares 'Read-only', covering the safety profile a readOnlyHint would normally provide. However, it says nothing about failure modes (missing/corrupt .world file) or any behavioral constraints beyond the read-only claim.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the enumerated return fields, with the read-only qualifier at the end. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields. For a simple read-only getter this is largely complete, with only error behavior and path-format specifics missing.

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?

One required parameter (world_path) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase '.world project' hints that world_path points to a .world file, adding marginal meaning, but there is no detail on path format, relative vs absolute, or validity requirements.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (.world project) and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, platform, dimensions, bounds, height ranges, layer names). It is clearly a metadata getter, distinguishing it from the terrain-editing and snapshot siblings, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. The agent can infer it is a read of project metadata, but nothing tells it when to reach for this over wp_analyze_terrain or wp_export_heightmap.

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