Server status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it explains that the `host` include requires the system:read permission, and clarifies semantics like 'paused' meaning nothing ticks and 'lan' meaning opened to LAN.

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 content is front-loaded with the core status fields, but the description is a dense, comma-spliced run-on that spends most of its length on an exhaustive field inventory. It is informative yet verbose, with lists of metrics an agent may not need up front.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly, covering default fields, conditional `include` behavior, and permission requirements. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits guidance on when to prefer it over related status/log tools.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% and only one optional param exists, the description expands on what each enum value actually pulls in: `performance` adds tick percentiles, CPU, per-world chunk/entity stats and JVM internals; `host` adds OS, CPUs, RAM, disk and container limits. That is meaningfully more than the schema's terse 'Parts to add'.

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 conveys that this tool returns a server status snapshot, enumerating the exact fields (version, TPS, memory, chunks, entities, platform/side). It is specific about the resource, though the action verb is only implied and it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings like get_world or get_server_log.

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 content: an agent can infer it should call this when it wants an overview of server health. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as get_events or get_server_log for logs, or which sibling to prefer for world-specific data.

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