mc_connect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the call blocks until chunk loading completes, that omitting host with no MC_HOST errors out, and that force causes a real disconnect/rejoin visible to other players. It stops short of timeouts, retry behavior, or what a successful connect returns.

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?

Front-loaded with the key constraint (no credentials here, see mc_accounts) and then the host/env-var rule. The force guidance is the longest passage and borders on instructional over-sharing, but it is actionable and each clause maps to a real failure mode.

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 6-parameter, zero-required, no-annotation tool this covers prerequisites, defaults, failure modes, and out-of-band remediation commands. Missing only return-value/pagination behavior, which is minor since no output schema exists but the agent could benefit from knowing what a successful connect yields.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds non-schema semantics: host falls back to the MC_HOST environment variable, account defaults to the session-selected account, version should normally be omitted for auto-detection, and force is explicitly not a chunk-refresh tool. These are cross-parameter behaviors the schema does not state.

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+resource (connect to an MC server) and immediately scopes it against mc_accounts by declaring '这里没有账号密码' – account choice is delegated. An agent can distinguish this from mc_disconnect/mc_accounts/mc_sessions without opening a 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?

Gives a clear workflow: check mc_accounts first, select with action:"use" or name an innerID, and pass host/port yourself (falling back to MC_HOST). It also tells the agent when NOT to use force and what to do on login failure. It lacks only an explicit comparison to sibling tools like mc_sessions or mc_status.

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