List Minehut servers

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' strongly indicates a read-only operation, and 'logged-in Minehut account' clarifies authentication requirements. Although the return format is not detailed, for a simple listing operation this is sufficient.

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 entire description is one concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'List' and immediately stating scope and output. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description fully conveys what the tool does and what the caller can expect: a list of servers with their current status. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds context about what the output will include (server statuses) even though no parameters need explanation.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: 'all servers on the logged-in Minehut account', plus the output detail 'with their current status'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like minehut_start or minehut_stop, which are action-oriented.

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 implies use for obtaining an overview of servers before performing actions, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. However, the context is clear from the sibling tool names (e.g., minehut_status for status-only, minehut_start for starting), so the guidance is adequate.

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