Send RCON

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, covering the mutation/destruction risk. The description adds that it sends a single command and returns the response, which is helpful but does not elaborate on side effects, authorization, or response format. Credit is given for the scope clarification, but no significant context is added beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core function, the second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded.

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?

Description covers purpose, return value, and usage context. It distinguishes from send_rcon_batch and aligns with the destructive annotation. Given the simple tool nature and rich schema, nothing else is needed.

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?

All five parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema fully documents each parameter. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states 'Send a single RCON command and return the response,' clearly specifying the action, resource, and scope. It explicitly contrasts with sibling tool send_rcon_batch by emphasizing 'single' and noting the batch alternative.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use for one-off commands; prefer send_rcon_batch when sending multiple commands.' This clearly states when to use this tool and names the alternative for other cases.

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