read_runtime

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

The description implies a non-destructive read operation ('snapshot'), but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, lack of side effects, or any constraints like rate limits. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short of full transparency.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Snapshot of server state:') and lists key contents. Every word is informative with no redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists the return fields. It is missing specifics on data types or formatting, but is sufficient for an agent to understand what will be retrieved.

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?

The input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by clarifying what the output contains (map, gamemode, etc.), which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 it returns a 'snapshot of server state' and lists specific fields (map, gamemode, CurTime, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_entities or read_players by being a general overview rather than a focused query.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling read tools, there is no indication of which one is appropriate for different scenarios.

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