explain_minestom_pattern

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

The description adds behavioral context by stating that the explanation is 'docs-backed' and covers 'how Minestom typically models' various aspects. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) which indicate safe, repeatable behavior. No contradictions are present.

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 single, well-structured sentence that conveys all necessary information without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and immediately actionable.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and the range of topics it can explain. No gaps are evident for a pattern explanation 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 input schema already provides full coverage (100%) with descriptions and enums for both parameters. The description does not add additional semantic value beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: to provide a docs-backed explanation of Minestom patterns across specific subsystems. It uses specific verbs ('explain') and resources ('Minestom pattern'), and the listed topics distinguish it from sibling tools like 'inspect_minestom_build' or 'lookup_minestom_api'.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you want...', providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools implies it is for pattern explanations. This is adequate but could be improved by specifying exclusions.

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