Live server status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds value by revealing an authentication requirement (Warden session) and enumerating the exact data points returned (build, uptime, players, resources, load). No contradiction with annotations; it complements them.

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?

Two tight sentences. The first packs the purpose and content list, the second states the prerequisite. No filler, front-loaded with the key scope ('Warden's dashboard for the server next to this session').

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description is sufficient: it explains the tool's output scope (build, uptime, players, resources, load), the prerequisite (session), and the operational context (next to this session). It does not describe return formatting, but that is not essential given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 are no parameters (schema has empty properties), so the description correctly does not need to elaborate on them. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific context, but none is needed.

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 states what it does: a dashboard for the server next to the session, listing content (build, uptime, players, resources, load). This differentiates it from siblings like open77_console_tail or open77_resources. It is not a tautology and conveys a specific resource and its scope.

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?

It mentions a prerequisite ('Needs a Warden session') but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternative status or monitoring tools (e.g., open77_resources, open77_console_tail). The 'server next to this session' phrasing gives some contextual scoping but no direct comparison or exclusion.

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