mc_world

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 does not disclose side effects such as world creation, whether leaving can lose unsaved progress, permission requirements, or what happens to an already-open world. For a state-changing tool with four actions, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the resource, context, and action set with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple action-dispatch tool.

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 and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining action-specific behavior and side effects. It instead gives only a one-line summary and omits return information, failure modes, and mutation risks. The result is under-specified for a tool that creates, opens, and leaves worlds.

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%, and the schema already documents every parameter and the action enum. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what is structured, such as valid name constraints or action-specific interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully handles parameter semantics.

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 ('Manage') and resource ('singleplayer worlds'), and enumerates the four supported operations: list, open, create, leave. It distinguishes the tool from movement or interaction siblings by anchoring it to the title screen, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 phrase 'from the title screen' gives context for when the tool is applicable, but there is no explicit guidance on choosing between actions, no prerequisites, and no statement of when not to use it. The action list implies usage but leaves the agent to infer conditions from the schema.

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