Respawn After Death

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining the auto-respawn dependency and the health-check prerequisite. Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't contradict them. It could enrich further by describing what happens if the bot isn't dead, but this is a minor gap for a simple action.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and no filler. The second sentence adds crucial usage guidance without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless, output-less tool, the description fully covers purpose, conditions of use, and a verification step. The annotations provide supplementary safety/idempotency information, and no output schema is needed. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), so there is nothing to add. The description naturally focuses on the action, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 'Respawns' and identifies the resource (the bot) and destination (spawn point/bed). It clearly scopes the action to 'after dying,' which distinguishes it from siblings like minecraft_sleep or minecraft_connect.

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?

Explicitly states when the tool is needed ('Only needed if the server's auto-respawn is disabled') and gives a concrete precondition ('check minecraft_status for health 0 first'). This provides clear usage context and a diagnostic step, going beyond a mere mention of alternatives.

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