rcon_command

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions RCON but lacks details about authentication, error handling, side effects (e.g., destructive commands), rate limits, or output format. This is insufficient for a raw command tool.

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 sentences, zero wasted words, front-loaded with the action. Efficient and easy to parse.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides purpose and usage guidance but omits output behavior, error cases, and safety warnings. It's functionally complete for a simple tool but lacks rich context.

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 100%, and the description adds value with concrete examples (e.g., '/players', '/time', '/evolution') that go beyond the schema's generic description, helping the agent know valid inputs.

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 explicitly states the action ('Execute a raw console command'), the resource ('Factorio server via RCON'), and frames it as an escape hatch for commands not covered by other tools, clearly distinguishing it from siblings.

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 says 'Use this as an escape hatch for commands not covered by other tools,' providing clear guidance on when to use it (fallback) and implying when not (if a dedicated tool exists). The sibling tool list reinforces this, though explicit exclusions are absent.

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