chest-peek

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Look at' implies a non-destructive read, which is transparent, but it does not disclose limitations like line-of-sight requirements, what happens if the chest is empty, or whether the action can fail. This is a plain statement of behavior without additional context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well structured.

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?

The tool is simple: 3 position parameters, no output schema, no annotations. The description adequately conveys the operation and implies the return will be the chest's contents. It does not specify return format or error behavior, but given the low complexity, this is acceptable.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptive names ('X coordinate', etc.) and types. The description's phrase 'specified position' adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Look at the contents of a chest at the specified position'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like chest-deposit and chest-withdraw, which modify contents, and look-at, which targets general blocks/entities.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for inspecting chest contents at a given position, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to select this over deposit/withdraw tools, but no explicit exclusions are given.

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