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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'never applies fixes' and adds that it proposes next steps. That is useful confirmation, but it adds little beyond the annotation and says nothing about what the output looks like or how it is scoped.

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 clause with the read-only guarantee as a semicolon qualifier — no waste. It is arguably too terse given the missing return-value context, but nothing is padded.

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-param, read-only tool with no output schema, the description should at least hint at what comes back (a diagnosis, recommendations, next steps) and how it relates to guia_performance. The safety profile is covered, but the shape of the result is not.

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 and the schema is fully closed (additionalProperties: false), so there is nothing to document beyond what the schema already conveys; baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a verb (interpret) and object (existing telemetry) plus the safety stance (never applies fixes), but 'diagnose' is only loosely specified — it does not say what a diagnosis consists of or how it differs from the sibling guia_performance.

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?

'Interpret existing telemetry' hints that telemetry must already exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to guia_performance, guia_status, or guia_plan_gather as alternatives.

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

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to explain safety. It adds useful behavioral context by stating that absent data stays null and is never guessed, but it does not explain what metrics are returned or how the snapshot is structured.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and the null-handling behavior efficiently.

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 read tool without an output schema, the description should clarify what metrics are available. It covers the null behavior but leaves the return content underspecified.

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 the baseline is 4. No parameter semantics are needed beyond the empty 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 states a read action on metrics, but 'available metrics' is vague and does not explicitly say performance or Minecraft. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like guia_status or guia_diagnose, leaving the agent to infer scope from the tool name and title.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus guia_status, guia_diagnose, or guia_plan_gather. The agent is not told which situations call for a performance snapshot.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safety profile, and the description reinforces it with 'non-executing plan. No gameplay actions.' That is useful confirmation. But it omits the 180-character input bound, what the returned plan looks like, and how non-Spanish or malformed input is handled, so it adds only moderate behavioral context.

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?

Two terse sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key constraint. Every phrase earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core intent and the non-executing guarantee. Yet with no output schema, it should explain what the 'plan' contains and what happens for invalid input; those gaps leave the agent under-informed about results.

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 0%, so the 'message' parameter is undocumented structurally. The description compensates by indicating the input is a Spanish request, giving real meaning to 'message'. However, it doesn't address the maxLength 180 constraint or expected format beyond 'Spanish request'.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it parses a Spanish request into a non-executing plan. This is distinguishable from the siblings (status, performance, diagnose), which are unrelated functions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them or clarify how the 'plan' relates to the title's 'companion mission'.

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?

'No gameplay actions' serves as a partial exclusion, telling the agent this is not for executing gameplay. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to the sibling tools, leaving usage largely implied by the 'parse a Spanish request' phrasing.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, but the description adds meaningful context: the status is sanitized and does not reveal player names. It also reinforces that the world is not changed, which is consistent with the annotation.

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 compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action (read sanitized status) and then adds the key behavioral constraints.

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 no-parameter, read-only status tool, the definition provides enough context to invoke it safely. The absence of an output schema means the exact returned fields are unspecified, but the description's privacy and no-mutation notes cover the main agent concerns.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not introduce confusion.

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 title identifies the resource as Minecraft world status, and the description states the action as reading sanitized status. Combined, the tool's purpose is clear, though the description alone does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like guia_performance or guia_diagnose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as guia_performance or guia_diagnose. It states behavioral constraints but does not frame them as usage conditions.

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