minecraft_wiki

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool returns accurate, up-to-date information from the official wiki, excludes Java Edition features, and recommends sequence-based approaches to manage response complexity. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but provides substantial operational guidance.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with core functionality, followed by usage recommendations. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes scope, the second addresses data quality, the third provides operational guidance. It could be slightly more concise but maintains good information density 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?

For a complex tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about scope, data sources, and recommended usage patterns. It doesn't describe return formats or error conditions, but given the schema's comprehensive parameter documentation and the description's operational guidance, it's reasonably complete for an information retrieval tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it mentions using 'sequence' for step-by-step gathering but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples beyond what the schema already contains. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool searches the Minecraft Wiki for specific editions (Bedrock and Education) and content types (commands, blocks, items, entities, mechanics), explicitly excluding Java Edition features. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'execute_command' or 'blocks' by focusing on information retrieval rather than game interaction.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it specifies using the 'sequence' action for step-by-step information gathering to avoid overwhelming responses, and outlines a specific workflow (search → get page → get section). This gives clear operational context beyond basic tool invocation.

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