tunnel

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. It implies a mutating/destructive dig operation, but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, block handling, rate limits, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for a world-editing action.

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 is appropriately concise, though its terseness leaves no room for the context an agent needs beyond the basic purpose.

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, no parameter descriptions, and an output schema that only covers returns, the description is too sparse for a 3-required-parameter mutation tool. It lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral disclosure that an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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. It refers only to "specified dimensions" without naming height, width, or depth or explaining units, constraints, origin, or coordinate behavior, adding very little semantic meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 and resource: "Dig a tunnel". This is clear and avoids tautology, but it does not differentiate the tool from siblings such as start_mining or mine_quantity, nor does it clarify the tunnel's scope or context.

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 tool versus alternatives like start_mining or path. The phrase "with specified dimensions" implies a use case but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or routing conditions.

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