檢查某座標是不是指定方塊

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool 'only reports whether the coordinate is the specified block', clarifying the return semantics as a boolean, and reiterates 'does not change the world' which aligns with annotations. It does not disclose other behaviors like error handling, but the safety profile is fully covered by annotations.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loading the core behavior ('does not change the world, only reports whether the coordinate is the specified block') followed by usage context. Every word serves a purpose with no 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 simple, read-only test tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and non-destructiveness. Required parameters are documented in the schema (with most having descriptions), annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists, so no return value explanation is needed. All necessary contextual information is present.

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 description does not explain any parameters, merely referring to 'that coordinate'. The schema provides helpful descriptions for block, blockStates, and the mode field, but the position object itself lacks a description. With schema description coverage at 67% (not high), the tool description was expected to compensate for missing parameter guidance but does not.

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's function: it does not change the world and reports whether a coordinate is the specified block. It also provides concrete use cases (confirming terrain before building, verifying recent builds), which distinguishes it from siblings like mc_read_block that likely return block data rather than a boolean test.

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 gives explicit usage context: use this tool before construction to check terrain or to verify placed blocks. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions but still provides clear guidance.

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