get_players

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

No annotations are supplied, leaving the description to fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Get a list of all players' without disclosing read-only nature, permission requirements, response format, or potential side effects. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool without 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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without superfluous content. It is front-loaded and efficient, conveying the essential information immediately.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core function adequately. However, it does not specify what information is included in the returned list (e.g., player names, UUIDs, locations) or how the tool behaves with an empty server. For a simple read operation, this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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 the schema reflects this with no properties. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed since there are no parameters to explain.

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 identifies a specific operation (get) and resource (all players on the server). It is distinct from sibling tools such as get_nearby_entities, connect, or send_chat, which serve different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or typical use cases. The only implied usage is that it is for retrieving the full player list, but there is no explicit comparison to other tools.

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