Harvest Crop

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it checks maturity for known crop types and refuses to harvest early unless force=true. It also lists potential errors ('nothing there, crop not fully grown, or not diggable'). This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about the tool's safety checks and failure modes.

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-loaded with the primary action, then elaborates on maturity behavior and includes return/error info. Every sentence adds value, no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation content. It is concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, the force flag, return shape, and error conditions. It could mention what happens to the harvested crop (e.g., it drops into inventory) but that is generally implied by 'harvest'. The description is adequate for an agent to use it correctly without additional context.

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 only 25% (only force has a description). The description mentions 'given coordinates' but does not explain the meaning of x, y, z (e.g., coordinate system, ordering, or units). It does clarify force=true as a way to bypass maturity checks, but the core positional parameters remain underdocumented. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate more, especially for x, y, z.

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 verb and resource: 'Breaks a fully-grown crop block at the given coordinates.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like dig_block or collect_block by focusing on crops and maturity checking. The mention of known crop types and the force parameter further clarifies its specialized purpose.

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 context that this is for harvesting fully-grown crops, and implies it should be used when a crop is ready to harvest. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as for non-crop blocks or when you want to force harvest (which is covered by force=true). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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