list_plans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it explain side effects, permissions, or return format. The phrase 'whether the world has moved under them' gives a hint about an additional status, but this is not fully explained and is more about output content than behavior.

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 sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified and cryptic. While it is not verbose, the brevity comes at the cost of clarity, and the sentence does not provide a complete or well-structured explanation of the tool's function.

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 the tool has 2 optional parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain the meaning of the parameters, the output structure, or any contextual details needed for correct usage. This is inadequate for a tool with even moderate complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. However, it only vaguely references 'this world' (possibly aligning with the 'world' parameter) and does not explain the 'save' parameter at all. The agent has no semantic understanding of what 'save' or 'world' mean, making the tool hard to invoke correctly.

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 'Plans saved for this world, and whether the world has moved under them' is a noun phrase that lacks a specific verb, relying on the tool name 'list_plans' to convey the action. It communicates the subject matter but does not explicitly state 'list' or 'retrieve', making it somewhat vague. It does distinguish from siblings by focusing on plans, but the purpose is not as crisp as a verb-driven description.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With a large sibling list including 'list_factories' and 'list_worlds', the description fails to clarify when 'list_plans' is the appropriate choice.

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