Find containers

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations it discloses real behavior: double chests count once, containers list their five most plentiful items, chunk-loading scope, the players:private permission requirement, and a prompt-injection warning that item names are player-written data. That last point is exactly the kind of non-structural risk an agent cannot infer from schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and in what order, then filtering semantics, then access and safety. No sentence is filler despite the density.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what a result entry contains (container type, count of matching items, top five items) and what access is required. Eight parameters are adequately handled by the combination of description and schema.

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 coverage is 63%, so the description usefully adds meaning to `items` (filter to containers holding any listed item, and report counts) and to the radius/proximity semantics via 'around a point, nearest first'. World and cursor are only covered by the schema, and the description never mentions pagination.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Chests, barrels, shulker boxes... in loaded chunks around a point') plus ordering ('nearest first'). It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling get_block, which is the other tool that touches blocks.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule to get_block for reading a single container in full, and implies search-then-inspect usage. It stops short of naming when not to use it (e.g., unloaded chunks require force_load_chunk first), but the operational context is clear.

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