mc_lan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it states read-only/no-connect behavior, the exact wire protocol and multicast address, the 1.5s announcement cadence, and the bounded constant return time from `seconds`. The main gap is that it says nothing about how multiple simultaneous announcements are aggregated or ordered in the result.

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 purpose, then protocol detail, then failure guidance — a sensible order with little waste. The default/max of `seconds` is stated in both the prose and the schema, and the emoji/formatting adds noise, but every substantive sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description still tells the agent what comes back (address, port, MOTD), how long the call takes, and what to do when it returns empty. That is everything needed to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `seconds` is a hard ceiling on the whole call because the tool never scans, not a per-host timeout, and it repeats the default 3 / max 15. It never mentions the `mode` parameter explicitly, which is why it falls short of 5.

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 names a specific verb+resource (probe LAN Minecraft servers) and adds a hard scope boundary: it only listens for the vanilla multicast announcement, it does not scan ports or send packets. That boundary cleanly separates it from siblings like mc_scan and mc_ping, and it names mc_connect as the follow-on tool.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (the other side used 'Open to LAN'), explicit when-not (don't expect it to work through WiFi/VPN/containers that block multicast), and an explicit alternative on failure (ask the other party for the address). It also routes the agent forward to mc_connect after a hit.

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