genMC – AI Minecraft studio

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is declared. The description adds the important nuance that effects are those of an arbitrary target tool and that this is a recovery path for a stale tool list; it stops short of saying what happens when the name is unknown or when no tab is paired.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the usage condition front-loaded right after the purpose. Nothing repeats the title or the 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?

There is no output schema, and the description never says what a call returns (presumably the target tool's own result) or how failures surface for an unknown tool name or unpaired tab. For a nested-object dispatcher this is an adequate but incomplete definition.

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 100% and each of the three parameters is documented in-schema, including the resumeKey session caveat. The description adds no meaning beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Call any tool of the paired studio tab by name' – an agent immediately knows this is a generic dispatcher, not a status/docs tool like the siblings. It does not explicitly name genmc_status/genmc_pair as the routing targets, leaving a small differentiation gap.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when your tool list has not refreshed after pairing or after the user switched studios') and an explicit alternative ('otherwise call the tool directly'). The when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and fallback path are all stated outright.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts this ('Read-only; it never changes the studio'). Beyond annotations it discloses return shapes per mode: a table of contents, best-matching articles with a snippet and matching section, or one article as full Markdown, plus the doc:<slug> cross-link convention.

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 the resource and scope, then the three calling modes, then the doc:<slug> convention, then the usage trigger. It is a single dense paragraph with no filler sentences; every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so for each mode (TOC, snippet plus section, full Markdown, cross-link format). Combined with a fully documented 4-parameter schema and read-only annotations, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real semantics: it explains that `article` must be a slug obtained from the contents or a search result, and that omitting all parameters yields the table of contents rather than an error. That workflow-level meaning is not visible in the schema.

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?

Specific verb pair (search and read) plus a named resource (genMC knowledge base) with an enumerated scope of topics (skins, builds, agents and pairing, accounts, export, shortcuts, troubleshooting). This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools genmc_call/genmc_pair/genmc_status, which perform actions rather than answer questions.

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 gives a concrete trigger ('when you are unsure how a feature works, what a label in the studio means, or how to explain something to the user') and explicitly routes between the three calling modes (no args, query, article). It does not name the sibling tools or say when to prefer genmc_call/genmc_status over consulting the docs, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world; the description goes far beyond by disclosing what pairing returns (a resumeKey), that resuming from a second MCP session attaches additively rather than replacing, that the tab's WebMCP tools get injected into the tool list, and that ChatGPT-style clients lose pairing between calls.

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 the core action in the first sentence, then the fallback paths. Six sentences is on the long side and the ChatGPT-specific aside is dense, but each sentence conveys distinct operational information rather than filler.

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?

Covers setup, return value (resumeKey), multi-session semantics, post-pairing tool discovery, and the degraded-client workaround, even though there is no output schema to lean on. An agent has enough to pair, recover, and keep calling 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description still adds lifecycle meaning — the code is user-visible in the studio header, and resumeKey comes from a prior result and must be threaded through every genmc_call/genmc_status in session-per-call clients. It does not state that either parameter alone suffices, leaving the either/or relationship to inference.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Connect to the user's open genMC studio tab.' It immediately explains the two ways in (new code vs. resumeKey), which distinguishes pairing from the sibling genmc_call/genmc_status operations it later references.

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?

Explicit routing: use the code after the user picks 'Connect agent'; use resumeKey when the MCP connection drops or restarts; use genmc_status/genmc_call if the tool list does not refresh. Alternatives and their triggering conditions are named, not implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the call has a side effect of refreshing the agent's tool list, which an agent would not infer from a 'status' name. It stops at 4 because it says nothing about failure modes when unpaired or unreachable.

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 sentences, zero filler. The capability list comes first, then the trigger condition, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 does describe the shape of the answer (pairing state, reachability, current page, offered tools), which is what the agent needs. It is slightly thin on what an unpaired/unreachable response looks like, but nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, and both parameters carry substantive descriptions (resumeKey session-attachment rationale, includeSchemas payload expansion), so the baseline applies. The prose itself adds nothing about either parameter, leaving the schema to do all the work.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') with a precisely enumerated set of facts it returns: pairing state, reachability, studio page, and offered tools. That scope is clearly distinct from genmc_pair (establishing pairing), genmc_call (invoking), and genmc_docs, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger — 'call it when studio tools are missing from your tool list (the user switched studios)' — which is a concrete, recognizable condition. It does not name exclusions or point at genmc_pair as the alternative when not yet paired, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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