mcs_exec_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that commands are executed on the server console, a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention potential side effects of commands (e.g., destructive commands like ban/kill), whether it requires specific permissions, or what the tool returns (e.g., command output vs. confirmation). Given the command execution nature and the absence of a safety profile, the description provides only partial transparency, warranting a 3.

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 well-structured, starting with the purpose and examples, followed by an Args section. It is informative without being redundant. The list of command examples is extensive but directly aids comprehension. Each sentence contributes to understanding, and the layout is front-loaded with key information. A small trim of examples could improve conciseness, but it remains efficient.

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 tool with only two parameters and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains both parameters with examples and provides usage scenarios. It does not describe the return value, but since an output schema exists, that obligation is satisfied elsewhere. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit caution about potentially harmful commands, but given the simple parameter set and output schema presence, a 4 is justified.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly with an 'Args' section that explains each parameter: instance_name is described as server instance name or UUID with examples, and command is described as a console command without a '/' prefix, with multiple examples. This adds significant semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, clarifying format and usage for both parameters.

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's function: sending console commands to a specified Minecraft server instance. It lists specific command examples (say, list, op, whitelist, give, tp, kick/ban, etc.) and concrete use cases ('send a notice', 'run op Steve', 'add to whitelist'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle instance lifecycle (start/stop/restart) or configuration, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context for when to use the tool, giving concrete request examples that map to user intents (e.g., 'send an announcement', 'check online players'). It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on console command execution rather than instance management, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools. Thus a score of 4 is appropriate.

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