mc_command

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely important behavioral trait — output is only what arrives within roughly 500ms, implying results may be truncated or delayed — but it says nothing about permission/op requirements, whether commands can mutate world state destructively, or what happens when a command fails.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action first and the return behavior second. Nothing is redundant or misplaced.

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 and no annotations, the definition covers the input convention and the timing-limited nature of the response, which is the main thing an agent needs to interpret results. It is only slightly short on failure modes and permission expectations.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema property already carries the no-leading-slash rule plus an example ('time set day'), so the description adds no syntax or formatting meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting for the single parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Run a slash command') and specifies the return ('chat output received in the next ~500ms'), which separates it in spirit from siblings like mc_chat or mc_type. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it replaces, so an agent must infer that non-slash chat goes to mc_chat.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'without leading slash' note plus the term 'slash command' tells the agent what kind of input fits, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over mc_chat, nor any warning about which commands are unavailable or require elevated permission.

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