execute_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the player will be notified in-game, the command executes as the authenticated player, and it returns output or error messages. It covers the essential mutation behavior and user feedback mechanism, though it doesn't mention rate limits or specific error handling details.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then provides usage details, parameter explanation, return values, and examples. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information, and it's front-loaded with the most important 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?

Given the tool's complexity (remote command execution with authentication requirements), no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter usage, return behavior, and multiple examples. The output schema handles return value structure, so the description appropriately focuses on operational context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides comprehensive parameter semantics: explains what the 'command' parameter is ('The Minecraft command to execute without the leading slash'), gives multiple examples, and shows how to get help. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 states the specific action ('Execute a Minecraft command remotely as the authenticated player') and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'tab_complete' by focusing on command execution rather than completion suggestions. It specifies the resource (Minecraft command) and the context (remote execution as authenticated player).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('run any Minecraft command as if the player associated with the API key typed it in-game'), including prerequisites (player must be online and on a server). It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or provide detailed alternatives beyond the sibling tool, but the context is well-defined.

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