mine_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real traits: mining consumes genuine in-game time (implying a long-running, possibly blocking call) and is bounded by interaction reach (proximity requirement). However, it never states whether the entity is destroyed, what happens on timeout, whether the action is cancellable, or how results are returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the phrasing "real mining time and interaction reach" is somewhat cryptic and could be stated more plainly.

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 six-parameter, zero-coverage, unannotated mutation tool, the definition is far too thin. The output schema covers return values, but nothing explains entity targeting, multi-count behavior, timeout semantics, or interruption, leaving major call-correctness gaps.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It never explains name, count, surface, unit_number, or position, and only loosely gestures at timeout via "real mining time"; an agent must guess which entity selector to use and what count=1 does.

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 names a specific verb+resource pair ("Mine resources or recover structures") that clearly identifies a harvesting operation distinct from placement or inspection siblings. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from siblings like inspect_entity or cancel_action, which an agent might reasonably confuse with an in-progress mining action.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many siblings. The phrase "interaction reach" only implicitly hints that the player must be near the target, and nothing says when to prefer this over cancel_action or move_to.

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