server_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It accurately states the action (checking running state and retrieving PID) with no side effects disclosed; for a simple read-only tool, this is sufficient. It does not contradict any annotations (none exist).

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 sentence with two clear actions, front-loaded with the primary intent. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what to expect (running state and PID), though it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., boolean + integer vs. JSON). Given the simplicity, this minor gap is acceptable.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, and the schema is trivially covered. No additional value is expected.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and names the exact resource ('Minecraft server process') plus the output ('get its PID'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like server_tps or players_list, which check other aspects of the server.

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 implies a read-only status check but does not explicitly state when to use it relative to alternatives. There is no mention of using it before start/stop or as a health check, and it does not name any alternative tool. Usage context is left to inference.

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