mine

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a game-state mutation (the player performs mining) but does not disclose what happens on failure, whether the player must be positioned first, whether the target is consumed, or any cooldown/range constraints.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first. It is not bloated, but "through the dedicated player's normal mining state" is low-value phrasing that could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists so return format need not be described, but with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and only one thin sentence, the definition is substantially incomplete for a 3-parameter action tool. It omits range prerequisites, failure behavior, and what count actually does.

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 0% across 3 parameters, and the description adds nothing about x, y, or count. It never explains that x/y are target coordinates or what count controls (e.g., blocks to mine), leaving all parameter meaning to the bare schema types.

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 states a specific verb ("Mine") and a resource ("a reachable target"), and it is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as craft, wait, move, and observe_*. However, "reachable target" is left undefined and "dedicated player's normal mining state" is vague jargon, so the action is not fully pinned down.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this instead of alternatives like move or craft, nor any stated prerequisites beyond the hint that the target must be reachable. The agent must infer that the target coordinates must already be in range before mining.

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