rcon_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that the command is raw and executed via RCON, and the 'use dedicated tools' note implies this is a lower-level option, but it does not disclose potential side effects, irreversibility, permission needs, or command output behavior.

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 two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by a concrete example and routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, this is largely usable, but it leaves return-value and safety expectations unstated. Since there are no annotations to cover the safety profile, the description would benefit from noting that raw commands can be powerful or destructive and that output may be returned.

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 schema already documents the single 'command' parameter as a raw console command without a leading slash, so parameter coverage is complete. The description adds a useful example but does not substantially extend 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 identifies the tool as sending a raw RCON command to the server console, with a concrete example ('gamerule keepInventory true'). It also distinguishes this escape-hatch tool from dedicated sibling tools, making its role unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises using dedicated tools for common actions when available, which tells the agent when to prefer alternatives and when to fall back to this raw command tool. This provides clear selection guidance relative to the many sibling tools.

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