Get Players

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns 'names, scores, and time in-game,' which clarifies the data behavior but does not disclose additional traits like pagination or network specifics. This is adequate but not rich, matching a 3 given annotation coverage.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded ('Get the current player list'), and the second sentence adds a usage hint. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only query tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value (player list with names, scores, time) and the intended use case. It could mention the required game server context, but the sibling tools imply a server query environment. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (address, port, timeout) having descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level detail, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter semantics fully.

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's function: 'Get the current player list with names, scores, and time in-game.' This specific verb and resource make it easy to understand what the tool does, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_server_info or get_rules by focusing on player data.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use to see who is on a server.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. That fits the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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