furnace-check

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions checking state and collecting output, which implies a mutating action, but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., removing items from furnace, inventory full handling), prerequisites (e.g., proximity to furnace), or failure modes. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that modifies state.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Check furnace state') and packs in the specifics (input/fuel/output/progress) and the secondary action (collect output). No unnecessary words 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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the state check returns. It lists the components (input/fuel/output/progress) but does not specify the return format or any error conditions. It is adequate for a simple tool but leaves some ambiguity about the 'state' result and collection behavior when no output exists.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (x, y, z) including the default for x being the nearest furnace. The tool description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, so it does not go beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 action ('Check furnace state') and specifies the scope ('input/fuel/output/progress') as well as a second action ('collect any smelted output'). This distinguishes it from siblings like smelt-item and craft-item, which focus on initiating or transforming items, and from chest-peek which is for chests.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to inspect a furnace and retrieve smelted items. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous given the tool's name and sibling list. The lack of explicit 'when not to use' guidance prevents a perfect score.

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