run_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'via RCON' and 'return the response,' but does not address whether commands can be destructive, what permissions are required, or any rate limits. This lack of safety and side-effect disclosure is a significant gap.

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 concise: one sentence stating the action and purpose, followed by four diverse examples. No superfluous information is present. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema (not shown but present), yet the description lacks behavioral details such as potential side effects or authorization needs. The examples help, but overall completeness is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides multiple examples that illustrate valid commands, adding meaning beyond the parameter name alone. However, it does not explicitly describe the parameter format, constraints, or expected syntax, leaving some ambiguity.

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 runs a Minecraft server command via RCON and returns the response. The examples further clarify the scope. It is distinct from the only sibling, get_ai_chat_status, which handles chat status queries.

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 implies the tool should be used to execute server commands, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any conditions or exclusions. The sibling tool is unrelated, so distinction is clear by function.

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