Find Nearest Block

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already convey the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the outward search behavior and the exact return format (found, count, blocks with x/y/z/name/distance), which is especially important since there is no output schema. It does not disclose internal details like search radius or failure behavior, but it supplements annotations well.

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 two sentences: the first delivers the main purpose with examples, and the second provides a compact return structure. There is no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and is easy to scan.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and return format. It lacks explicit mention of the max_distance parameter's role (though the schema and parameter name hint at it) and does not address edge cases like 'no block found'. Given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, these omissions are minor, making the description complete enough for most use cases.

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 67% (count and block_name have descriptions; max_distance does not). The tool description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond the schema, and notably fails to clarify the meaning of max_distance. However, the schema already provides sufficient explanations for the common parameters, and the parameter names (max_distance) are fairly self-explanatory. The description's return format mentions 'distance', but that does not directly address parameter semantics. Overall, the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds extra value, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Searches outward from the bot for the nearest block(s) matching a given block name.' This identifies the specific action (search), resource (block), and scope (nearest/outward). It also provides concrete use cases ('find me some water' / 'find diamond ore') which distinguish it from general block queries like get_nearby_blocks. The verb+resource+scope are explicit, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage context: 'useful for ... before navigating or mining.' This signals when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternatives such as minecraft_get_nearby_blocks. Since it gives a clear context without saying when not to use it, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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