mine_quantity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not say whether the call blocks until completion, whether it requires the agent to already be positioned at the target blocks, what happens if fewer blocks exist than requested, or whether it can fail or time out.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. Against a tool with zero annotation coverage and fully undocumented parameters, however, this level of brevity reads as under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 described. Everything else is missing, though: no annotations, 0% parameter documentation, and no behavioral context for a world-mutating action, leaving the agent unable to call this confidently.

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 for both parameters. It only echoes them implicitly — 'quantity' and 'block type' — without specifying the identifier format (e.g. namespaced block IDs), whether quantity is a hard upper bound, or valid ranges.

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 ('mine') and object ('a specific quantity of a block type'), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from adjacent siblings such as start_mining, goto_block_type, or item-production tools, leaving the agent to guess which mining entry point applies.

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, no exclusions, and no named alternative. With siblings like start_mining, stop_mining, and goto_block_type in the same domain, the agent has no signal about when this bounded-quantity tool is preferable to a continuous mining session.

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