act

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It explains actions and parameter format but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. The list of actions provides reasonable transparency.

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 long due to the extensive action list, but it is structured well with a clear purpose statement and bullet list. However, some redundancy (e.g., repeated parameter formats) could be trimmed.

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 complexity of a generic action executor with multiple sub-actions, the description is quite complete: it lists actions, their parameters, and param format. An output schema exists, so return values are covered externally.

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 0%, but the description compensates by listing all actions and their expected parameters, along with format examples for the 'params' string, adding significant meaning beyond 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 clearly states 'Execute a game action through the Mod HTTP bridge' and lists many specific actions, distinguishing it from sibling tools by noting it is a generic low-level tool with preference for specific tools in guided mode.

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?

Guidance is provided by stating that when LOR_MCP_TOOL_PROFILE is 'guided', specific tools should be preferred. This implies act is a fallback, but it does not explicitly state when not to use act.

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