mc_check_connection

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

As a read-only 'check' operation, the tool is implicitly non-destructive, but without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral details. It does not specify what response format to expect (e.g., boolean, status string) or whether an error is thrown if the connection is down. The description is minimal but not misleading, hence a mid-range score.

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, clear sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a tool of this simplicity and is front-loaded with the key 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It communicates the core function, but it could enhance completeness by stating what kind of result is returned (e.g., success/failure indicator). Given the low complexity, the description is adequate with only a minor gap.

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, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no conflicting information. There is no additional semantic meaning to provide beyond the 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: 'Check RCON connection status'. It identifies the resource (RCON connection) and the action (check status), making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools that focus on executing commands, listing players, or managing whitelist/op permissions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it could be used as a prerequisite before issuing commands, nor does it state any conditions under which it should be called. While the purpose is clear, the description lacks explicit usage context.

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