Minecraft world status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, but the description adds meaningful context: the status is sanitized and does not reveal player names. It also reinforces that the world is not changed, which is consistent with the annotation.

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 compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action (read sanitized status) and then adds the key behavioral constraints.

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 no-parameter, read-only status tool, the definition provides enough context to invoke it safely. The absence of an output schema means the exact returned fields are unspecified, but the description's privacy and no-mutation notes cover the main agent concerns.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not introduce confusion.

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 title identifies the resource as Minecraft world status, and the description states the action as reading sanitized status. Combined, the tool's purpose is clear, though the description alone does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like guia_performance or guia_diagnose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as guia_performance or guia_diagnose. It states behavioral constraints but does not frame them as usage conditions.

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