find

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 does not disclose whether this is read-only, whether it can trigger movement/pathing, what happens when the block is not found, or how costly the search is. 'Attempt to find' faintly implies possible failure but nothing more.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a simple one-parameter read tool that is nearly adequate, but the absent parameter format and usage context (find vs. get_cached_block/goto) leave real gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does not. It refers to 'the block' but never states the accepted format/namespace for block_type (e.g., 'minecraft:stone'), which is the key ambiguity for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it searches Baritone's cache for a block's location. That is meaningfully clearer than the bare name 'find'. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like get_cached_block, cache_block, or goto_block_type.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_cached_block, goto_block_type, or path. No prerequisites, no conditions, no exclusions are given; the agent must infer the usage scenario entirely.

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