Jogadores conectados

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does communicate a read-only listing behavior and the output fields, but it does not mention details such as ordering, identifier format, error behavior, or whether the result is a flat list or nested structure.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The key verb, resource, and output fields are all front-loaded and every word contributes value.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description provides the essential information: what it lists and which fields are included. It is adequate, though the absence of an output schema and any detail on identifiers or edge cases leaves minor room for ambiguity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is complete with an empty properties object. There is no parameter information for the description to add, so the baseline of 4 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Lista') and a clear resource ('jogadores online'), and enumerates the returned fields (id, nome, ping, identificadores). It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like fivem_status.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as fivem_status or fivem_command. There are no exclusions, alternative suggestions, or contextual conditions provided.

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