goto_block_type

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 search radius, whether it blocks until arrival, what happens if the block is not found, or any permission/context requirements. For a movement command with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero padding; the core action and an example are stated immediately. It is efficient, though the single sentence is thin for the amount of behavioral context the tool needs.

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?

With no annotations, one undocumented parameter, and a movement-oriented action, the description should at least hint at scope (search range, failure behavior). The existence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, but the remaining behavioral gaps leave the agent under-informed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and the parenthetical examples ('diamond_ore', 'portal', 'ender_chest') do clarify the expected block_type values. But it gives no format rules (namespace, casing, variants) or mention that values must match in-game block IDs, so compensation is partial.

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?

States a specific verb ('Go to') and resource ('a block of a specific type') with concrete examples, so the agent knows this is a navigation-to-block command. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling navigation/search tools such as find, path, thisway, or goal_coordinates, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like find (likely block lookup) and path/goal_coordinates (movement), the agent gets no signal about when this tool is preferable to those.

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