mc_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the default behavior (summary) versus verbose behavior (full detail, 5 chats, connection info) and implies this is a passive state read with no side effects. However, it says nothing about failure behavior when no session is connected or the account is offline, and never explicitly confirms read-only/no-mutation semantics — meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the field list so the agent knows the payload before the optional branch. Every clause earns its place: the field enumeration and the verbose contrast both carry information. Slightly dense field-list formatting but no 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields and the summary/verbose split. Still missing: what is returned or raised when there is no live session, and any hint of how this differs from mc_observe/mc_diag. Those omissions keep it from a 5 for a zero-annotation, zero-output-schema tool.

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?

There is only one optional parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above that by explaining what verbose actually changes — connection info, all watchdog switches, and 5 chat entries instead of a summary with the last 3 chats — which is more concrete than the schema's generic 'complete detail'. Enumeration of the default payload versus the verbose payload is real added meaning.

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 (view my Minecraft status) and then enumerates exactly the fields returned: online status, coordinates, facing, health, hunger, held item, mode, watchdog presence, and recent chat lines. That makes the tool's scope concrete and distinguishable from write/action siblings like mc_move or mc_give. It does not, however, distinguish itself from read-oriented siblings such as mc_observe or mc_diag, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description implies usage (quick glance by default, full detail via verbose:true) and implicitly draws the verbose boundary — 3 chats and summary fields vs. connection info, all watchdog switches, and 5 chat lines. But it never says when to prefer this over mc_observe, mc_diag, or mc_sessions, and there is no exclusion guidance. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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