MCJars

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: it returns URLs only and does not download or execute files. It also states that no match produces an error without substituting another game version or channel, which is useful failure-mode context.

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 short, front-loaded with the core operation, and each sentence adds distinct value. The separation rule, return-only behavior, and no-match behavior are all stated without repetition.

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 the high schema coverage and absence of an output schema, the description provides the key behavioral context an agent needs: version semantics, URL-only return behavior, and error behavior. It could still be slightly more explicit about using list_providers/list_versions first, but the schema covers that adequately.

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 already high at 88%, so most parameter meaning is documented in the schema. The description still adds value by explicitly separating minecraftVersion for the game from version for the full provider build and by reinforcing the omitted-version behavior.

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 a specific verb/resource combination ('Get an exact provider build or the newest matching build') and immediately clarifies the scope when version is omitted. It also distinguishes its output from a download action by stating it returns URLs only, which helps separate it from sibling listing tools.

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 clearly explains the selection behavior when version is omitted and how minecraftVersion differs from version. It does not explicitly name list_providers or list_versions as prerequisites, though the schema parameter descriptions do reference them.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes the payload shape (slugs, descriptions, version summaries) but says nothing about result volume, paging, or ordering of the provider catalog.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return contents appended rather than padded into extra clauses. Nothing is wasted.

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 carries the burden of characterizing the return value, and it does so concisely. Its only real gap is the absence of any catalog-size or pagination expectation for an open-world listing.

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 three parameters are analytics plumbing (context, llm_model, conversation_id), each fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, and the tool takes no domain-specific inputs. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable here but not value-adding, 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?

The description gives a specific verb (List) and resource (Minecraft server software and proxy providers) and previews the returned fields (slugs, descriptions, version summaries). It implicitly separates itself from list_versions by scoping to providers rather than versions, but never names the sibling explicitly.

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 statement of when to call this versus get_download or list_versions, and no mention of prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is the discovery step that precedes the version/download lookups.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds real value beyond that: ordering (newest first), that each result groups all OS downloads for a single build, and the stable-by-default policy. It doesn't mention pagination or rate behavior, but the safety/behavior profile is well covered.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information (ordering, filtering, result grouping, default policy), with the core purpose front-loaded. No restatement of the title or 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the result shape ('groups all operating-system downloads for one build'). The analytics-only params are documented in-schema, so their absence from prose is fine; only pagination semantics are unaddressed.

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 63%, and the schema already documents provider, minecraftVersion (explicitly not the loader version), and the channel enum. The description reinforces the channel/minecraftVersion filtering and the stable default but says nothing about limit/offset pagination, which the schema leaves bare.

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 ('Browse provider builds') plus explicit scope: catalog order, newest first, filterable by Minecraft version and channel. An agent can distinguish it from get_download and list_providers, though it doesn't name those siblings to explain the boundary.

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?

'Stable builds only unless requested otherwise' implies the default selection behavior and when to override channel. However, it never states when to call this versus get_download or list_providers, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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