Players and characters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description only needs to add context, and it does: it discloses the precondition that a client must be connected and that the client parameter defaults to the last-connected client. It does not mention limits on data volume or behavior when no players are present, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 default action and its return set are front-loaded, then the details and character variants follow in logical order. It is a single dense paragraph with no filler, though breaking the two actions into separate sentences would improve scanability.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields for each action. Combined with the stated connection prerequisite and the documented defaults, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 all five parameters are already documented with defaults and enum values. The description adds marginal meaning by expanding what the details flag actually returns (walk speed, jump, state, equipped tools, backpack, leaderstats, attributes) and by noting that a partial name suffices for the player lookup, but the bulk of parameter semantics lives in the schema.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource ('Look at the players in the server') and then enumerates the two call shapes (list / character) and exactly what each returns. An agent can tell this apart from sibling tools like character_control or stats because it is clearly a read-only inspection call.

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?

It tells the agent which action is the default, what the details flag adds, and how to scope to a single player via action character. The prerequisite 'Requires the connected state' is a useful when-to-use condition, but no explicit alternative (e.g. use stats for server-level data) is named.

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