View Nearby Blocks

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful details beyond this: it returns non-air blocks only, sorts closest first, caps results at 400, and specifies the radius range/default. This provides operational context but doesn't explain nuances like line-of-sight vs. loaded chunks.

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 and appropriately sized: a one-sentence overview, a purpose statement, then clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 description supplies a return-shape sketch and the 400-result cap, compensating for the lack of an output schema. It covers both optional parameters and their defaults. Minor ambiguities remain (e.g., what 'can see' means precisely and whether coordinates are absolute), but it is largely complete for a read-only scan tool.

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 schema only describes block_names, leaving radius without a description. The description compensates fully: it explains radius as a block distance with min/max/default, and clarifies block_names with examples and the omission behavior ('Omit to return all non-air blocks'). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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: 'Scans the world around the bot and lists non-air blocks it can see, closest first.' It uses a specific verb ('Scans') and resource ('the world around the bot'), and adds a helpful analogy ('the bot's eyes for terrain/structures') that differentiates it from sibling tools like get_block_at or find_block.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'use it before building or navigating.' However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusion/alternative guidance that would earn a 5.

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