Project Zomboid server status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It conveys that the tool fetches 'live status' and lists the returned data, implying a read-only network query. However, it doesn't explain error handling, data freshness guarantees, or the implications of the optional service_id parameter beyond the schema. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 core status fields and followed by usage triggers. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple status tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned and when to invoke it. It omits response format details, but those are likely handled by the output schema, and the tool's complexity does not demand more.

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 coverage is 100%, with the only parameter (service_id) described as 'Nitrado service id. Defaults to NITRADO_SERVICE_ID when omitted.' The tool description adds no parameter-specific insight, but with full schema coverage, 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 clearly identifies the tool as providing live status of the PZ gameserver, listing specific fields (online/offline, address, slots, players, version, memory). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on configs, files, mods, and settings, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 call the tool: 'Call this when the user asks whether the server is up, who is playing, or for the connection address.' This provides clear guidance on use cases, though it does not name alternative tools for non-status queries.

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