List Online Players

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the exact return structure, including the count and player fields with ping and gamemode, which is not covered by annotations. This goes beyond the structured metadata.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core action and resource, then provides a clear return format example. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, zero required inputs) and the rich annotations, the description is fully complete. It explains both the behavior and the return format, which is essential since there is no output schema. Nothing important 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?

This tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics. The focus is solely on the operation and output, which is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Lists'), a precise resource ('every player currently online'), and additional details (ping and gamemode). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like minecraft_status and minecraft_get_nearby_entities by its explicit scope of all online players across the server.

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 implies the tool is used when you need a list of online players, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide any exclusions. No sibling tool is mentioned as an alternative, so the guidance remains only implicit.

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