发现世界（第一步，无需任何凭证）

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: no API key is required, the call is a discovery/prerequisite step, and a false agentEnabled value is a hard gate that causes downstream failures.

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?

Front-loaded with what the call returns, then the usage recommendation, then the failure condition — a sensible order. It is a bit dense with parenthetical enumerations, but every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes responsibility for describing the return payload (name/ID, agentEnabled, capabilities, access method) and the failure mode. For a zero-required-parameter, read-only discovery tool this is complete enough to call correctly.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (refresh) whose 100% schema coverage already documents the 5-minute cache bypass. The description does not add meaning to it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (读取...公开发现文档) and enumerates exactly what the document contains: world name/ID, AI-access flag, capabilities (observation radius, rate limits, actions), and client access method. This clearly separates it from the sibling action tools (world_enter, world_observe, world_say, etc.), which it is explicitly a prerequisite for.

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 states usage context directly — '第一次使用建议先调这个' — and gives a concrete decision rule: if agentEnabled=false, AI access is disabled and later actions will fail. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it gates, but for a first-step discovery call the sequencing condition is clear.

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