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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose RCON transport, automatic leading-slash handling, and raw server text output. However, for an arbitrary command execution tool, it does not warn about full console privileges, irreversible side effects, or potentially destructive commands beyond using the word "ANY".

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 dense, front-loaded sentences cover the action, the exact invocation convention, the relationship to sibling tools, and the return behavior. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Without an output schema, the description correctly explains what is returned: raw server text output. It also covers the key distinction from siblings. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning risk or permission implications of RCON, but the core calling context is present.

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 only 50% because the required command parameter has no schema description. The tool description compensates by explaining that the command should not include a leading slash and that one will be added if present, which is critical semantic guidance. The timeout parameter is adequately described in the schema itself.

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?

Description clearly states it executes any vanilla or plugin command via RCON, which is a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself as the most general tool, covering everything not handled by structured mc_* tools, and gives concrete examples like /gamemode and /effect.

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?

Usage context is explicit: use this tool for anything not covered by the structured mc_* siblings, with examples of fallback scenarios. The description makes the selection rule clear without requiring the agent to inspect other tools.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful operational details: the command mapping (/give), item identifier examples, and a default count of 1. However, it does not disclose side effects on the player's inventory, whether the player must be online, or error behavior for invalid items.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action, includes examples, gives a default, and references the underlying command. Every element earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 adequate for a simple tool: intent, item formatting, recipient, and default count are clear. However, it omits any note about player identification format (name vs UUID), whether recipients must be online, or what happens on failure, which would be useful given there is no output schema and no annotations.

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 only 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying the item parameter with concrete examples and by stating that count defaults to 1. It also identifies player as the recipient, which is not described in the schema. The timeout_ms parameter remains schema-documented rather than description-covered, but that is a minor gap.

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 (Видає / gives), names the resource (item), the recipient (player), and the amount (count), and includes concrete Minecraft item identifier examples. It is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like mc_teleport or mc_set_time despite not explicitly naming an alternative.

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 no guidance on when to use mc_give versus mc_command, which is a key sibling that could also execute a /give command. Use is only implied by the action itself; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing hints.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does state the concrete effect (disconnecting the player) and that the reason is shown to the player. It does not mention consequences like rejoin ability, permission requirements, or expected errors/response.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action, includes the command hint, and adds no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 simple tool with three parameters, the main action and parameters are covered. Still, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not state return/error behavior or prerequisites like the player needing to be online.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates by explaining that 'player' is the target and 'reason' is an optional message shown to the kicked player. 'timeout_ms' is already documented in the schema, so all parameters can be understood.

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, 'відключає' (disconnects), names the resource ('гравця' / player), and mentions the optional reason. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as mc_teleport or mc_say.

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?

Usage is implied by the kick semantics: use it to disconnect a player. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over mc_command or whether the player must be online, so alternatives and exclusions are not stated.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does convey that the tool is a read-only snapshot of currently connected players via /list, but it does not explicitly mention side effects, error cases, permissions, or that it modifies nothing on the server. This is adequate for a simple query tool but leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single compact sentence that states what the tool returns and even includes the underlying command. Every part earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restating.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential return semantics: кількість і ніки гравців. The only real gap is that it does not describe the exact output shape, but the simplicity of the tool makes the current level sufficient.

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 only parameter, timeout_ms, is fully documented in the schema with range and default, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb 'Повертає' and names the exact resource: кількість і ніки гравців, підключених зараз до сервера. The parenthetical '(/list)' further anchors it to a specific command and clearly separates it from siblings like mc_teleport or mc_give.

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 no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, especially mc_command, which could theoretically also run /list. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues explaining when this convenience tool is the right choice.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the main behavioral traits: the message is public, visible to all players, and attributed to the server. It omits minor details like error/return behavior, but for a chat broadcast the core side effect is explicit.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The core action, audience, attribution, and command equivalent are all front-loaded, and every word adds value.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema is largely complete: required message is covered, optional timeout is covered, and the effect is clear. It would benefit from explicit guidance about sibling alternatives, but the agent can invoke it correctly without ambiguity.

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 50%; timeout_ms is well described in the schema, but the description contributes nothing about it. The description does clarify that 'message' is the chat content being broadcast, adding meaning beyond the bare schema property, but it does not fully compensate for the undocumented message field.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it broadcasts a message in chat to all players on behalf of the server, and explicitly identifies the Minecraft command (/say). This clearly differentiates it from generic siblings like mc_command and unrelated tools like mc_teleport or mc_give.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when a server-wide chat announcement is needed. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose mc_say over mc_command or name alternatives/exclusions, so an agent must infer the routing context.

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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It honestly signals a state-mutating operation ('sets game time') and names the underlying command, but it doesn't disclose that the change affects the whole server's time-of-day globally, that operator privileges may be required, or what happens on invalid input. This is adequate but thin.

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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause earns its place: the operation, the accepted value forms, and the canonical command mapping. Nothing needs to be cut or reordered.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with one required field and no nested objects, the description plus schema give an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly: the value format is explained and the optional timeout is schema-documented. The only real gap is the absence of any indication of confirmation/return behavior, which is minor for a command-wrapper tool.

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 only 50% — the required 'value' parameter has no schema description, while timeout_ms is alreadily documented. The description compensates for the gap by explaining that value is a tick count OR a keyword, adding the 'тіків' meaning that the bare integer constraint in the schema lacks.

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 has a specific verb and resource — 'Встановлює ігровий час' (sets game time) — and goes further to specify the accepted input forms: a tick count or one of four keywords. The '/time set' reference anchors the tool to a known Minecraft command. However, it never names or contrasts any sibling, so differentiation from mc_set_weather rests on the inherent time-vs-weather distinction rather than explicit guidance.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for changing game time, and the description clarifies the two accepted value formats. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives (notably mc_command, which could issue '/time set' directly), and no exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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 are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool runs the equivalent of /weather and supports an optional duration, but it does not mention side effects, persistence, permissions, or output behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, the accepted values, and the optional duration without redundancy 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?

The definition is adequate for a simple setter: it gives the action, values, and optional duration, and there is no output schema to explain. Missing context about operational effects and when to prefer this over a generic command leaves moderate gaps.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates by explicitly naming the weather values and clarifying that duration_seconds is optional and measured in seconds. timeout_ms remains well-documented in the schema itself.

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 and resource: 'Встановлює погоду на сервері' (sets the weather on the server), and lists the valid values and optional duration. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose but does not explicitly differentiate it from similar siblings like mc_set_time.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as mc_command or mc_set_time. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit usage conditions beyond the general weather-setting context.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the core effect (teleporting), exposes that selectors can affect multiple entities, and identifies the underlying /tp command. However, it does not disclose failure behavior, coordinate interpretation, permission requirements, or what the caller receives on success or error.

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 a single dense sentence with the main action front-loaded and the parameter syntax summarized compactly. It is efficient and free of irrelevant details, though a short structured breakdown would improve readability.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the definition is usable but not fully complete. It covers the core teleport semantics and acceptable parameter forms, but omits usage context, error behavior, and side-effect notes beyond the basic movement. The 100% schema coverage prevents major gaps, but an agent still cannot fully predict call outcomes.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, so the coverage baseline is 100%. The description mostly restates the schema's target and destination explanations, adding only slight clarification through examples and the /tp reference. It adds no new semantic information about timeout_ms.

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 names the exact operation: teleporting a target to a destination, and it specifies both valid target forms (player nick or vanilla selectors like @a/@p/@e[type=...]) and destination forms (coordinates or another entity). This makes the tool clearly distinguishable from siblings such as mc_say or mc_kick. The explicit reference to /tp also anchors the tool in the underlying Minecraft command.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, especially mc_command, which could potentially run /tp directly. The description explains what the tool does but never states conditions, exclusions, or routing rules. An agent is left to infer the appropriate use case from the tool name and purpose.

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