Minehut server status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state what data will be retrieved (status, player count, RAM, MOTD, version, plugins) and that the tool accepts a server name or id, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what happens if the server is offline, or any authentication requirements. These gaps leave some behavioral uncertainty.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a clear list of returned data. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is concise and well-structured for quick parsing by an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It enumerates the return fields, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It does not mention error cases or response format, but for a simple status tool, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'server' with the description 'Server name or id'. The tool description repeats this same information ('Accepts the server name or its id.') without adding any new meaning or examples. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a Minehut server'), enumerating the exact data fields returned: status, player count, RAM, MOTD, version, and plugins. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that start, stop, command, or log, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: whenever a Minehut server's status information is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the verb 'Get' and the list of returned fields imply a read-only, status-checking role that is distinct from the mutating sibling tools. There is no alternative guidance, but the context is self-evident.

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