mineResource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('mine') but doesn't describe traits like whether it consumes time/tools, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., items added to inventory). This leaves critical behavioral aspects unclear for a mutation-like operation.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in a tool definition.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two parameters and a likely mutation action ('mine'). It lacks details on behavior, return values, or error conditions, making it inadequate for the agent to fully understand how to invoke it correctly in context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions ('Number of blocks to mine', 'Name of the block/resource to mine'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid names or constraints on count, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 'Mine specific blocks or resources' states a verb ('mine') and resource ('blocks or resources'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'mine' entails in this context (e.g., breaking blocks, collecting resources) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'harvestMatureCrops' or 'pickupItem', which could involve similar resource-gathering actions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing tools), exclusions (e.g., cannot mine certain blocks), or compare to siblings like 'harvestMatureCrops' for crops or 'pickupItem' for loose items, leaving the agent to guess based on context.

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