get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says the tool gets statistics; it does not mention whether it queries a remote server, whether it is read-only, what format the result takes, or any side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the core purpose with minimal waste. The examples in parentheses add useful specificity without bloating the description.

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 status-read tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks any mention of return shape, optional-address behavior, or how this differs from the many diagnostic siblings. The absence of an output schema increases the need for a bit more context.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the input schema already fully documents it as an optional host:port to override the project server. The description adds no additional meaning about 'address' beyond what the schema provides, 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 identifies a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current server statistics') and gives concrete examples (hostname, players, map). However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling get_server_diagnostics, whose name suggests a potentially overlapping purpose.

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 on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_players, get_rules, or get_server_diagnostics. The description implies a basic status check but offers no exclusions or comparison clues.

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