Read player state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of indicating safety. The word 'Read' signals a read-only operation, but additional behavioral details such as error handling, offline player behavior, or response format are not disclosed. The list of attributes adds some context but doesn't go beyond basic semantics.

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 one efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a compact list of attributes. Every word contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately specifies the returned player attributes. It doesn't detail output formatting or error scenarios, but these gaps are minor for a simple read operation.

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 100% for the single parameter 'player', which is fully documented with its meaning and default. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and enumerates the exact attributes (position, world, view direction, health, food, XP, gamemode, movement flags, and held item), making it unambiguously a player state query. It clearly distinguishes from sibling action tools like move_to or attack.

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 for obtaining player state but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_inventory or get_block_at. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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