dig-directly-down

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention potential risks (e.g., falling, lava), the constraint that only blocks listed in allowMiningOf are mined, or stopping behavior. This is a significant gap for a mining tool.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a useful usage hint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 description covers the basic purpose and usage but misses critical context such as safety implications, behavior when encountering unminable blocks, and the role of allowMiningOf. Given the simplicity of the tool and the schema richness, the description is adequate but not complete for safe and correct use.

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 100%, with each parameter (digTimeout, allowMiningOf, blocksToDigDown) already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 clearly states the specific action: 'Dig straight down by mining blocks directly below the bot.' This distinct verb+resource+scope differentiates it from sibling tools like dig-adjacent-blocks or move-horizontally-by-mining.

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 phrase 'Good if the target is far down' provides a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternative tools, stopping short of full guidance.

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