List world layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Given there is no output schema, the description usefully discloses the returned fields (id, kind, shape, position, size, color), but says nothing about ordering, snapshot-vs-live semantics, or whether the list can be empty.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, leading directly with the payload contents. The parenthetical field enumeration is dense but earns its place by substituting for the missing output schema.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return shape. The only gap is the lack of any hint about live-vs-static behavior or result ordering, which is minor for a layout dump.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is fully self-describing (empty object) and the description correctly implies no input is needed.

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 the resource (world layout) and enumerates exactly what is returned: size, light position, obstacles with their fields, and colored floor tapes. This is specific enough to distinguish it from mutators like move_light or add_obstacle, though it does not differentiate it from the read-oriented sibling get_observation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as get_observation, list_sensors, or read_sensors, all of which return overlapping world state. The agent must infer that this is the static-geometry snapshot rather than a live sensor reading.

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