server_tps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does identify this as a read-only operation—getting stats—which is positive. However, it doesn't disclose any potential limitations, such as whether TPS is averaged over a period, whether MSPT is instantaneous, or if the command might fail on a stopped server.

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?

One short, direct sentence that conveys the exact purpose. No wasted words, and key information (what metric, for what target) is front-loaded.

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 this is a zero-parameter read-only utility with siblings like server_status, the description is mostly sufficient. It could be more complete with a note that this is a performance-specific counterpart to server_status or a mention of the return format, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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 takes no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially complete. The description reinforces that no arguments are needed by focusing solely on the output values. A 4 is appropriate because there is nothing more parameter documentation could add.

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 tool retrieves the server's current TPS and MSPT stats. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('server's current TPS and MSPT stats'), distinguishing it well from sibling tools like server_status or server_start.

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 this is a diagnostic/read-only monitoring tool, useful for checking server performance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over server_status or provide contextual guidance such as 'use this for performance diagnostics'.

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