Read Sign Text

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds the return shape { x, y, z, front, back } where back can be null. However, it does not disclose error behavior if the block is not a sign or whether the sign must be in a loaded chunk. The return format is valuable since no output schema exists.

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 a compact two sentences with the purpose in the first sentence and the return shape in the second. No unnecessary words or redundancy with annotations.

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 read tool with good annotations, the description provides purpose and return shape, but it omits parameter semantics and failure behavior. Since there is no output schema, the return shape is covered, but the lack of error handling or coordinate details leaves gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage; x, y, z are typed as numbers with no descriptions. The description only refers to 'the given coordinates,' adding no further meaning about coordinate system or units. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of 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 the tool 'Reads the text written on a sign at the given coordinates,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling read tools like minecraft_get_block_at, which would return block types rather than sign text. The title 'Read Sign Text' reinforces the 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 implies usage when needing sign text from a specific location, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as minecraft_get_block_at or minecraft_get_nearby_blocks. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls at 'clear context, no exclusions.'

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