mc_ping

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does: no login, no account, no joining the server, connection closed immediately after, timeouts handled internally so the call will not hang. It also decodes the failure surface (ECONNREFUSED = nothing listening, ENOTFOUND = bad hostname, timeout = firewall or enable-status=false), which is exactly the side-effect and failure-mode disclosure a caller needs for a read-only network probe.

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?

Purpose and safety profile are front-loaded in the first two lines, then sibling routing, so nothing structurally important is buried. It is dense with emphasis markers and a parenthetical error glossary, but every line still carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

Four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description enumerates the returned fields (reachability, version, protocol, MOTD, players, latency) and maps the common error codes to plain-language causes. An agent can decide whether to call it, how it will behave, and how to interpret the result without further context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (port, address, subserver, timeoutMs) is already documented with defaults, accepted formats and clamping ranges in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond referring to a known address, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: it sends exactly one Minecraft STATUS ping against a single known address and returns reachability/version/protocol/MOTD/player count/latency. It explicitly distinguishes itself from mc_connect (joins the server) and mc_lan (discovers unknown addresses). It does not, however, say anything about the sibling mc_status, which an agent could easily confuse with a status ping, so the differentiation is clear but not complete.

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 an explicit when-to-use ("已知地址时"), an ordering recommendation ("先用 mc_ping 确认地址与版本（推荐）再 mc_connect 进服"), and an alternative for the opposite case ("不知道地址时用 mc_lan"). The agent knows both when this tool is right and which sibling to reach for when it is not.

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