world_summary

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 disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the content categories (progress, power, problems) but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects it may have, or any permissions required. The lack of annotation and minimal behavioral info leaves significant gaps.

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, short sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and to the point, earning its place by providing the core idea without unnecessary elaboration.

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 sparse schema (no parameter descriptions) and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the parameters do, what the returned summary looks like, or what 'progress', 'power', and 'problems' entail. The tool may be simple, but the description leaves too much unsaid for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters ('save' and 'world'), and the tool description does not explain what these parameters mean or how they relate to 'for one world'. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter semantics, leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate them.

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 'Progress, power and problems for one world' clearly indicates the resource (one world) and the content scope (progress, power, problems). It distinguishes from siblings like list_worlds by stating 'for one world', though it lacks an explicit verb like 'summarizes' or 'gets'. Overall, it's clear but not maximally specific.

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 alternative tools like factory_query or list_worlds, nor any exclusion criteria. It simply describes the output without contextualizing the appropriate use case.

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