stellaris_readme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' makes the safe read-only nature obvious and the content list tells the agent what material it will get, but nothing is said about size, format, or whether the whole README is always returned—relevant for a document-sized payload.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the content enumeration in a compact clause. No 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?

With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description must cover what the call yields, and listing the README's three subject areas does that. A note on format or approximate length would close the remaining gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless fetch of a fixed document.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (the MCP server README), then enumerates what the README contains: architecture, the bot-challenge workaround, and the teaching contract. That enumeration distinguishes it from siblings like stellaris_explain and stellaris_ui_hint, though it never names them directly.

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 phrase 'for answering player questions' hints at the intended context, and the mention of a 'teaching contract' implies this is meta-guidance to consult. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, and no signal on how this differs from stellaris_explain or stellaris_glossary for question answering.

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