Inspect a schematic file

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only inspection operation and lists the output contents, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that no modification occurs, how errors like missing files are handled, or whether the path is local to the server.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the key output fields. There is no redundant wording, and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple inspection tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists return values but omits usage context such as path interpretation and edge-case behavior. It is minimally complete but leaves room for ambiguity about how the path should be supplied and what happens for invalid files.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly relates path to '.schem/.nbt files' without explaining path semantics, allowed file types, or required format. The agent has limited added meaning beyond the parameter name itself.

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 title 'Inspect a schematic file' provides a specific verb and resource, and the description enumerates the exact metadata fields returned (format, size, offset, DataVersion, block counts, block-entity count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like preview, get_block, or paste_schematic, which operate on different aspects.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer schematic_info over preview, read_region, or schematic_write, nor any prerequisites such as file existence or path restrictions.

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