Get Bot Position

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral detail by listing the exact return fields (x, y, z, yaw, pitch, standingOn, dimension) and the notion of 'exact' coordinates, which is useful for the agent. There is no contradiction.

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, front-loading the purpose and then providing the return structure. No redundant or irrelevant information is present.

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 no-parameter, annotation-covered read tool, the description gives the exact return shape, which is essential given the absence of an output schema. It is complete for the tool's simplicity and does not require further 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 schema provides complete coverage. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the explicit return format covers the only input/output concern.

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 ('Returns') and identifies the exact resource ('the bot's exact current coordinates, facing direction, and which block it's standing on/in'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'minecraft_get_block_at' or 'minecraft_get_nearby_blocks'.

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 when the agent needs the bot's current position, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. For example, it could note that this is the dedicated tool for the bot's position rather than other position-based queries, but it doesn't.

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