Read blocks from the world

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals non-obvious behavior: ASCII layer slices are only included when the box is ≤4096 blocks or full=true. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, although the verb 'Read' and the verification context strongly imply it.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first states the core behavior and condition; the second gives the intended usage. Everything present earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a useful summary of the return content and a usage context, but it omits critical parameter details such as max_layers semantics and from/to coordinate conventions. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete.

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 only 20% (world is described), and the tool description must compensate. It explains full's role and hints that from/to define a box, but it does not explain the coordinate order, whether bounds are inclusive, or the behavior and purpose of max_layers. These are significant gaps for a region-reading tool.

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 clear verb and resource: reading a region of blocks and returning block counts plus ASCII layer slices. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_block or get_heightmap by describing box-level output rather than single-point queries, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 explicitly says 'Use after building to verify the result,' which gives a clear intended context. It does not, however, explain when not to use it or when to prefer a sibling tool like get_block or preview.

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