Open Container

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the agent walks within reach first, that opening maintains a persistent state until closed, and that deposit/withdraw operate on this open container. It also provides return value details and error conditions. This significantly enriches the behavioral profile beyond the minimal readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary action and target. It efficiently communicates the persistent state, return format, and errors without unnecessary verbiage. Every sentence earns its place.

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 fully explains the tool's behavior, including movement, stateful relationship with other container tools, return shape, and error cases. Since there is no output schema, the manual return/error documentation is essential and well provided. The tool is sufficiently complex (stateful, coordinates) and the description covers all essential aspects.

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 provides only x, y, z with type number and no descriptions. The description clarifies these are 'given coordinates', which adds some semantic meaning but does not specify the coordinate system, range, or whether integers are required. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate more thoroughly for parameter semantics, so this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 specifically states it opens containers (chest, trapped chest, barrel, shulker box, dispenser, dropper) at given coordinates and lists contents. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like minecraft_close_container, minecraft_container_deposit, and minecraft_container_withdraw by describing the persistent open state that those tools depend on.

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 explains that the container stays open until minecraft_close_container is called and that deposit/withdraw act on the currently open container, implying this tool should be used before those operations. It also mentions errors, giving context for when it may fail. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as minecraft_activate_block or minecraft_use_furnace.

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