Get Biome At Coordinates

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate these. It adds value by disclosing the return format, including the nullable 'biome' field, which is not present in the schema.

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?

Two short, focused sentences. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes only necessary detail about the return object. No wasted words.

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 a simple read-only lookup; annotations cover safety, the return shape is described, and the parameter meaning is clear from context. With the schema and sibling tools providing additional environment context, the description is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 names x, y, z as numbers with no descriptions. The description adds meaning by calling them 'exact world coordinates', which clarifies the coordinate system. This compensates for the missing schema-level parameter descriptions.

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 a specific action ('Looks up') and a specific resource ('biome at exact world coordinates'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_block_at and get_light_at by specifying biome as the target.

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 usage context (querying biome data at coordinates) but does not explicitly compare with or exclude alternative tools. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools serve a different purpose.

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