Multiplayer status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must signal behavioral traits. The verb 'Show' strongly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and the list of returned data is helpful. Still, it does not explicitly state that no state is changed, nor mention freshness, permissions, or failure behavior.

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, efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Show') and then lists the distinct data categories in a readable sequence. Every listed item adds useful information, with no filler or repetition.

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 parameterless status tool with no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive semantic picture of the return content. It covers identity, rooms, peers, member activity, message queue, and unread count, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full scope without needing additional detail.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameter semantics because there are none, and it accurately focuses on what the tool returns.

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 begins with a specific verb, 'Show', and names the resource (multiplayer status) along with a detailed enumeration of the exact information returned: display name, rooms, peers, members with last-seen times, queued messages, and unread count. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_messages or show_history, which focus on narrower message or history concerns.

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 intended use is implied by the tool name and the listed contents: call this when you need a broad multiplayer status snapshot. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives such as check_messages or show_history, and no exclusions or conditions are given.

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