Get Bot & World Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool may return connected: false, implying a prerequisite state, and provides the full return shape, which is not covered by annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence overview, the return schema explaining the output, and a conditional usage note. Every element is necessary, especially the return schema since there is no output schema in structured form.

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?

The description is complete for a stateless read-only tool with no parameters. It includes the full return object, a conditional follow-up instruction, and is consistent with the annotations. No missing aspects are apparent.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters but instead enriches the tool's meaning through the extensive return object, which is helpful even though not directly about parameters.

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 returns the bot's current health, hunger, position, gamemode, dimension, time, weather, XP, and online players. This distinguishes it from specialized siblings like get_position and get_time, establishing it as the comprehensive status endpoint.

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 gives clear context by noting 'Call minecraft_connect first if this returns connected: false', providing a temporal usage instruction. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_position or list_players when only partial status is needed, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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