get_world_data

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does add one non-obvious data trait: nonplayer groups include hidden groups. "Read" plus "page" reasonably implies a non-mutating, paginated call. It omits response shape, whether pages are stable/snapshot-consistent, and any session or permission constraints, which is a meaningful gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler; the sibling pointer is placed last where it belongs. It is efficient, though the parenthetical hidden-groups note reads as an isolated detail with no tie to a specific category.

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 four-parameter paginated reader with no output schema, the biggest omission is category semantics and paging behavior, both of which the agent needs to call it correctly. The definition covers action, scope, and one routing alternative, but leaves the dominant enum undocumented.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% -- just session_id is documented. The description never mentions limit, offset, or category, and gives no meaning for the 14 enum category values, so an agent cannot tell what "stockpile" versus "stockrooms" or "groups" versus "virtual_groups" returns. The phrase "a page" is the only hint that limit/offset control paging, so the description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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?

"Read a page from live game objects across the map" gives a concrete verb (read) plus resource (live game objects) and signals pagination. It explicitly redirects building lookups to get_map_buildings, so an agent can separate it from at least one sibling. What stays fuzzy is the category scope: "game objects" is broad and the definition never says what the 14 categories actually cover.

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?

One explicit alternative is named with its condition (building details -> get_map_buildings), which is real routing help. But there is no guidance on when to pick this generic page reader over the many specialized report siblings (get_colonists_report, get_squads_report, get_economy, etc.), nor any advice on paging or category selection. Usage is only partially inferable.

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