get_world_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'returns' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly disclose that it has no side effects, whether it is safe to call frequently, or any performance implications. It also omits context about the meaning of 'hashes' or 'trace' and whether the returned data is a snapshot or live state. This is minimal transparency.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and lists all major output categories. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague 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?

Given that an output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), the description need not detail return types. The summary of returned components (layers, actors, rules, hashes, trace, debug history) is sufficient for a simple, zero-parameter getter. It lacks usage context, but that is already scored separately and does not undermine completeness.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior, and the empty schema already confirms there are no arguments. The description adds value by indicating what the returned data includes, which indirectly clarifies that no inputs are required.

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 the specific verb 'Return' and names the exact resources: rendered layers, actors, rules, hashes, trace, and debug history. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like update_actor, remove_actor, and create_actor, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used for inspecting state, nor does it reference compare_observation or create_snapshot as alternatives for state examination. Without such context, the agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and purpose.

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