Blocks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description layers on genuinely non-obvious behavior: permission gating for container contents, the chunk_not_generated failure mode, omission of inapplicable fields, double chests collapsed into one entry with left half first, and an explicit prompt-injection warning that player-written names/lore/book titles are data, not instructions.

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 core capability is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries information. The long semicolon-chained enumeration of container types and item attributes is dense and slightly bloated, though it substitutes for the missing output schema.

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 carries the full burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly: block state, item payloads, enchantments/attributes/potions, omission rules, and the error case. An agent can call it correctly and interpret results without further docs.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics the schema lacks: y-omission resolves to the column's top block and heightmap selects which surface definition applies. The world parameter's meaning is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Opens with a concrete resource and scope: 'Blocks at up to 16 positions in one call', followed by exactly which properties come back (type, state, light, biome, redstone, contents). It reads unambiguously as a bulk read, which contrasts implicitly with set_blocks and find_containers, but no sibling is named, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clear usage rules: omit y to get the column's highest block (with a stated rationale, surface before a teleport), and container contents require players:private. It never says when to use a different tool, so an agent must infer that find_containers is for searching rather than probing known coordinates.

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