mine

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses vanilla mining time/reach, the 80-tile explored-ground limit, count-based operation semantics, and the supported resource-name patterns. It does not mention job queuing or cancellation behavior, though replace/wait_s are documented in the schema.

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 entire key behavior is packed into one dense front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is slightly long and parenthetical-heavy, but every clause carries useful constraint or mode information.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the core modes, range, timing model, and resource examples. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It could be more explicit about what happens if both x/y and resource are supplied, but "either...or" largely covers this.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates by explaining x/y (minable thing at a coordinate), count (number of mining operations), and resource (named resource like "iron-ore" or "tree"). The remaining two params, wait_s and replace, already have explicit schema descriptions.

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 names a clear verb and resource: "Mine by hand" with two explicit modes (targeted x,y mining or named-resource mining by count) and concrete constraints (vanilla mining time/reach, explored ground, 80 tiles). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like deconstruct or place_entity.

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 description clearly implies when to use the tool: when manually mining either a specific tile or a resource within range. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternative tools such as deconstruct or build_plan, leaving some routing to the agent's inference.

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