agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it hints at various actions, it doesn't describe what the tool actually does (e.g., executes commands in a Minecraft-like environment), potential side effects, permissions needed, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 11 parameters and no output 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?

The description is a single, efficient phrase listing action categories without unnecessary words. However, it's front-loaded with a broad scope that might not clearly guide usage, and it could benefit from more structure to clarify the tool's core function.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the tool's context (e.g., Minecraft agent control), behavioral outcomes, or how to interpret results, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool effectively despite the detailed 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 description coverage is 100%, providing detailed documentation for all 11 parameters including enums and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage without adding value.

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 lists categories of actions ('movement, building, mining, inventory, exploration, construction, resource gathering') which gives a general sense of purpose, but it's vague and doesn't specify a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'camera' or 'world' by focusing on agent actions, but doesn't clearly differentiate from 'player' or 'sequence' tools that might overlap in functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'player' or 'sequence', leaving the agent to guess based on the action list alone.

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