mcs_instance_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the operation is a query (读取状态) and lists the fields returned, which implicitly indicates a non-destructive read. However, it does not mention required permissions, error behavior (e.g., instance not found), or whether the operation has side effects. While not contradictory, it leaves some behavioral aspects unstated, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 crisp and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary function and details, the second gives typical use cases, and the argument block clarifies the parameter. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff. For a single-parameter tool, this is optimally concise.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), and the contextual signals, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what data it returns, and how to specify the target instance. The only notable gap is the absence of usage exclusions, but that low impact given the tool's nature. Overall it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 input schema only provides the parameter name 'instance_name' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description compensates by explaining that the parameter accepts either a display name (昵称) or an instance UUID, with concrete examples ('生存服', 'SMP', '我的世界主服'). This adds substantial semantic value beyond the schema, though it could go further (e.g., mentioning case sensitivity or format validation) — hence a 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('查询') with a clear resource ('Minecraft 服务器实例的运行状态与详情') and enumerates the exact details returned (运行状态、在线玩家数、端口、启动命令). It also provides example user questions, making the scope instantly recognizable and clearly distinct from sibling tools like mcs_start_instance or mcs_list_instances.

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 usage by giving example questions ('XX服务器状态怎么样', etc.), which signals when an agent should call this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools for related tasks (e.g., listing instances for discovery, or waiting for status changes). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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