mc_inventory

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses very little. '看' implies a read-only operation, but nothing confirms there are no side effects, states expected permissions, or describes the return shape for a tool whose output would be a structured inventory listing.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and the three resources covered. It is appropriately sized, though it could have used the same space to add a routing hint without becoming verbose.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema read tool, the description does roughly enumerate what comes back (inventory, equipment, held items), which is the minimum needed. However, it omits whose inventory is inspected and whether the result is a snapshot versus a live view, leaving meaningful ambiguity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for 0 params applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 single sentence names a specific verb ('看' / view) and concrete resources: backpack, equipment slots, and held items. An agent immediately understands this is an inventory inspection tool, though it never says whose inventory (the bot's own) or distinguishes itself from siblings like mc_status or mc_observe.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to any alternative such as mc_status or mc_observe which likely also surface state. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name and resource list.

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