Chunks

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: what the listing contains (entity/tile-entity counts) and what the detail mode returns (entities by type, player dwell time, slime chunk, force-loaded status). It does not discuss pagination behavior for `cursor`/`limit`, which is the only remaining gap.

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?

Short, front-loaded with the listing behavior, then the sort guidance, then the detail mode, then a coordinate primer. The phrasing is telegraphic ("With chunk, that one chunk in detail:") but nothing is redundant, so it reads as terse rather than wasteful.

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 five optional parameters including a nested `chunk` object and no output schema, the description carries a heavier burden, and it does describe returned content for both modes plus the coordinate convention. It is nearly complete, though it never explains how `cursor` paging plus `limit` interact in practice.

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 meaning the schema does not: it explains what each `sort` mode prioritizes and defines chunk coordinates as block coordinates divided by 16 and floored. That is real semantic value above the enum documentation.

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 concrete resource (loaded chunks) and the payload it carries (entity and block entity counts), plus a second mode that returns one chunk in detail via the `chunk` parameter. It does not name or contrast any sibling (e.g. list_entities, get_block), so it is clear but not differentiated.

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?

It gives a genuine when-to-use cue: sorting by `entities`/`tileEntities` surfaces the busiest chunks, "which is where lag usually sits," and tells the agent to switch to the `chunk` parameter for single-chunk investigation. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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