mc_capabilities

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden: it discloses that this is a pure informational read-out, lists the categories of limits and configuration it exposes, and warns against retrying unsupported versions. It does not say whether results are cached or how static they are, but the safety/behavioral profile is effectively clear.

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 compact blocks: a bracketed scope header followed by the when-to-use rule. The content is dense with enumerated items but every clause carries information (versions, namespace, caps, config), and the decision guidance is placed at the end where it is most actionable.

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 no-param, no-output-schema introspection tool with no annotations, the description supplies the reader with what will be returned (version range, login methods, namespace, limits, config highlights) and how to act on the answer. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the values reflect live state or a static manifest.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the argument level, and it correctly signals a no-input query tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource set: it reports what the plugin can do and where its boundaries lie, enumerating concrete contents (testedVersions, mineflayer version, login methods, tool namespace, sequence-step/memory/event-queue caps, current config). This is far more specific than a restatement of the name, and the 'boundary' framing distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like mc_connect or mc_status.

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 gives an explicit trigger ('before joining, when unsure whether a version can connect, check this first') and a fallback behavior ('if truly unsupported, tell Master honestly, don't force it'). It does not name a competing sibling to use instead for a related need, so it falls just short of a 5.

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