get_loaded_cells

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Query' implies a read-only operation, but there is no explicit statement about side effects, return format, or whether it requires any specific editor state. The description is too terse to inform the agent of expected behavior beyond the innermost surface.

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, direct sentence with no filler, redundancy, or extraneous details. It is appropriately sized for a simple query tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of contextual information. It explains what the tool does but omits key details such as what the query returns, how results are presented, whether any side effects exist, or how it interacts with the world partition system. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 because the description need not compensate for parameter documentation. The single sentence adds no parameter-specific information, but that is acceptable here as there is nothing to document.

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 'Query currently loaded world partition cells' uses a specific verb ('Query') and a precise resource ('currently loaded world partition cells'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_actors or spawn_actor, none of which target world partition cells.

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, no mentions of preconditions, or exclusions. There is no context about typical scenarios, and it does not reference any sibling tool or alternative approach. It is a bare statement without usage direction.

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