list_worlds

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: grouping by world, newest-first ordering, default selection of the newest save, and pagination via offset.

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 short and front-loads the grouping/sort behavior, but the phrase 'the names save= and world= take' is awkward and introduces an unexplained parameter name. It is concise but not cleanly structured.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers grouping, sorting, default behavior, and pagination. It still leaves ambiguity about the response shape and the nonexistent 'save=' reference, so it is only partially complete.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains world= and offset= somewhat, but also references 'save=' even though no save parameter exists in the schema, creating confusion for the agent.

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 the core result: saves grouped by world, ordered newest first. It is clear enough to understand what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly say 'list' and does not distinguish itself from siblings like world_summary or plans.

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?

It gives parameter-driven usage hints: world= lists one world's saves and offset= pages them. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as world_summary or list_factories.

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