players_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not mention any side effects (there likely are none), performance implications, or whether it requires any special permissions. It also doesn't clarify what constitutes 'online' (e.g., active connections) or how the list is returned.

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 extremely concise, with a single, clear sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It avoids unnecessary words or details, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks information about the response format (e.g., list of usernames, UUIDs) and any potential limits or empty states. Since it's a read-only status tool, this is acceptable but could be enhanced.

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 coverage is 100% with no properties defined. Since there are no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to explain them. The score reflects that the tool is self-contained with no ambiguity in parameter usage.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'currently online players', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like player_ban or player_kick, though it could be more specific about the format of the list (e.g., player names, UUIDs).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like server_status or whitelist_list. It doesn't mention that this tool specifically shows real-time online status, nor does it differentiate between online players and whitelisted players.

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