Minecraft Ops MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal context beyond this (it specifies 'text file' reading), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error conditions, file size limits, or encoding considerations that aren't covered by annotations.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (a simple read operation), rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. However, it could benefit from more usage guidance given the many sibling file tools.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify path formats or daemon/instance selection logic). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Read') and resource ('a text file from an MCSManager instance'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'file.download_local' or 'file.list', which also involve file operations but with different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling file tools (e.g., file.download_local, file.list, file.write), there's no indication of when reading a file is appropriate versus other file operations or how this tool relates to them.

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