world_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clarifies what data is included, which adds some value, but it does not mention platform-specific differences, data freshness, response format, or any rate limiting. The description is factual but shallow on behavioral traits beyond the content coverage.

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 that front-loads the primary purpose and then lists the included data areas. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the tool name. It is concise, scannable, and well-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?

The tool is a simple getter with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description lists the exact content sections returned, which gives a good understanding of what to expect. However, without annotations or output schema, some behavioral completeness is missing (e.g., how data is returned, platform impact), but given the low complexity, the description is largely adequate. A full 5 would require explicit mention of response structure or caveats.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by listing section names that align with the enum values (e.g., 'open world cycles' maps to 'cycles'), but it does not introduce new meaning or clarify parameter usage beyond the schema. The schema already provides adequate semantics.

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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'current Warframe world state', followed by an explicit list of content areas (sortie, archon hunt, nightwave, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like individual lookups or specific event trackers. It is not a tautology and fully explains what the tool does.

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 implies usage for retrieving a broad set of current world state data, and the sections parameter suggests selective usage, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives like baro_kiteer or active_fissures. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, only the implied context of wanting current state.

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