move-horizontally-by-mining

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic loop (mine, walk, repeat) but omits critical behavioral constraints: it does not mention that only blocks in the 'allowMiningOf' mapping are mined, how failures are handled (e.g., unminable blocks), or potential side effects like dropping items or causing falls. This is insufficient for a destructive 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently captures the core action and purpose. It could have included a second sentence for constraints without becoming bloated, but as-is it is appropriately concise.

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 tool that modifies the world (mining) with 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, a one-sentence description is incomplete. It lacks information about failure modes, relationship between target coordinates and numBlocksForwards, stopping conditions, and what the agent should expect after execution. The schema covers parameters but not the behavioral context.

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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal value by referencing 'the specified number of blocks,' which aligns with 'numBlocksForwards' but does not clarify the role of targetX/Y/Z or the semantics of 'allowMiningOf' beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Mines blocks ahead and walks forward, repeating for the specified number of blocks.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'move-horizontally' by specifying the mining mechanism and its underground purpose.

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 a clear usage context: 'to make progress underground.' This implies the tool is for horizontal movement through blocks, which differentiates it from plain movement tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for non-mining movement.

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