get_block_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states that the tool 'gets information' which implies a non-mutating read operation, but it does not elaborate on what information is returned, potential error conditions, or whether permissions are required. This is minimal and does not enrich the agent's understanding beyond the obvious.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without repetition or filler, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 tool is simple with full parameter descriptions, but the description does not specify what 'information' is returned (e.g., block type, properties, or state) and lacks an output schema to clarify. While it is minimally sufficient for a getter, the absence of return value details and usage guidance leaves slight 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 input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter (x, y, z) described as a coordinate. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, merely referencing 'specific coordinates'. Since the schema already fully documents parameters, a baseline 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('information about a block') with a precise scope ('at specific coordinates'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'dig_block', 'place_block', and 'find_blocks' by focusing on reading block data rather than modifying or searching.

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 use for retrieving block properties at a given location, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'find_blocks' or how it differs from 'collect_block' or 'activate_block'. There is no mention of exclusions or preconditions, leaving the agent to infer context from the name.

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