mc_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it implies a read by using "Get" but never states that it is side-effect-free, nor does it mention cost, latency, or whether the state snapshot is live. It does, however, disclose the shape of the returned data (position, health, food, FPS, version), which is meaningful behavioral information in the absence of an output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence naming the resource first and then the returned fields, with no filler, hedging, or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every clause (screen, position, health, FPS, version) carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration does the work of describing the return value, and it covers the principal client-state dimensions an agent would need. It lacks only minor items such as whether data is a snapshot versus streamed, which the sibling tools (mc_hotbar, mc_inventory, mc_world) largely cover separately.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is a 4. Nothing in the description adds or contradicts parameter meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Get Minecraft client state") and enumerates the concrete fields returned (in-world flag, current screen, position/health/food, window size, GUI scale, FPS, version), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like mc_screen or mc_hotbar. It stops short of naming those overlapping siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor any reference to alternatives such as mc_screen, mc_world, or mc_goto_status that partially overlap in scope. Usage is only implied by the fact that it reports client state, which an agent must infer as a pre-action sanity check.

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