mc_execute_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states 'via RCON', but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or that arbitrary commands may mutate server state. This is insufficient for a generic command executor.

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 concise sentence that states the essential function. No filler or redundancy, and it is appropriately front-loaded for an AI agent to quickly grasp.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and a detailed schema, the tool is a generic command executor that could have significant side effects and output. The description does not mention return values, output formats, error behavior, or any safety caveats, making it incomplete for a tool of this power.

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 fully covers the single parameter 'command' with a clear description ('without leading slash'), giving a baseline of 3 for high schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the score remains at baseline.

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 executes a Minecraft command via RCON, using a specific verb ('execute') and resource ('command on the server'). It distinguishes from specialized siblings like mc_list_players and mc_get_server_info, but does not clarify the difference from mc_execute_as_op, which may also execute commands.

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 mc_execute_as_op or the specialized command tools, leaving the agent without a basis for choosing between them.

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