mc_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well on prerequisites: it discloses that a whitelist applies, lists the default allowed commands, and warns that commandWhitelist cannot be modified from an MC-mode session. However it says nothing about execution semantics — return format, failure behavior for non-whitelisted commands, or whether the command runs synchronously — so gaps remain for a privileged mutating tool.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with capability then whitelist mechanics then the last-resort warning. Slightly dense with bold markers and the long inline command list, but no sentence is 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers permissions, the allowlist boundary, session-mode constraints, and alternative tools. Return values aren't described, but that is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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% and the schema itself specifies a leading-slash full command string, so the parameter is already documented. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by defining which command names are actually permitted and how to extend that set, which materially informs what value to pass.

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?

States a specific verb ('execute server commands') plus resource and identity scope ('as the player'), then distinguishes itself from siblings by naming mc_act / mc_build / mc_move as the preferred path for normal actions. An agent can place this tool relative to the rest of the suite without reading any schema.

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?

Explicitly frames itself as a last resort ('⚠️ 这是最后手段') and directs the agent to mc_act / mc_build / mc_move first, noting those don't require OP. It also tells the agent how to widen the allowlist via mc_admin_config and where that change must be made (normal session, not MC mode).

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