get_status

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read operation (Get) with no destructive actions. However, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open project) or any side effects, rate limits, or authorization needs. Adequate for a simple state retrieval but lacks full transparency.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose with specific outputs, second provides usage guidance. No extraneous information; every word earns its place.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what the tool returns and when to use it. Could mention error conditions or return format but is sufficiently complete for a simple getter.

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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100% for empty schema). Baseline for 0 params is 4. Description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (state components), which is meaningful beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'current Blockbench state', listing specific components (open project, format, counts of cubes/groups/textures/animations, edit mode). It distinguishes from siblings by advising to call get_status first and to use get_guide before building/texturing.

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?

Explicitly recommends calling this first to understand the workspace and provides a conditional alternative: use get_guide before building or texturing. Could more broadly state when not to use, but the guidance is clear and context-aware.

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