Get Pterodactyl startup command and egg variables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: hidden variables are never returned, the tool cannot mutate anything, and no update tool exists. This goes beyond what the structured annotations alone provide.

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 front-loaded with the full return payload in the first sentence, then adds a practical use case, then disclosure about hidden variables and read-only behavior. Every sentence carries substantive information and there is no fluff; it is slightly long but not padded.

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 covers the main operational needs: what the tool returns, why an agent would use it, what it cannot do, and the hidden-variable caveat. An output schema exists, so return structure is already available. Minor gaps like error behavior for an invalid server identifier are not material given the schema's default fallback and sibling listing guidance.

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 100%, so the single optional 'server' parameter is fully documented in the input schema, including the default and how to discover valid identifiers. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and a precise set of resources: resolved startup command, raw template, Docker image, and user-viewable egg variables with their attributes. It also gives a concrete use case (inspecting jar file, memory flags, Geyser toggle), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like power state, file, or console tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'before troubleshooting a boot failure or explaining current configuration.' It also clearly says the tool cannot change variables and that no sibling tool does, routing changes to the panel UI. It does not name a specific alternative sibling for similar config reads, but the guidance is otherwise concrete and useful.

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