Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• look-atC
  2.5/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining effects (e.g., changes orientation, triggers events), permissions needed, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified, making it inadequate for safe invocation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Make the bot look at') and target ('specific position'), making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely involves behavioral effects (orientation change), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'look at' entails, return values, or error handling. For a 3-parameter tool with potential side effects, this minimal description is insufficient.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions (X, Y, Z coordinates). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as coordinate system details or units. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the action ('look at') and target ('specific position'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'look at' means in this context (e.g., visual focus, orientation change) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get-position' or 'move-to-position'. It avoids tautology by not just repeating the name.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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, context (e.g., in-game environment), or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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

• equip-itemC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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. 'Equip' implies a mutation (changing equipment state), but the description doesn't specify permissions needed, whether it's reversible, error conditions (e.g., if item not available), or what happens on success. It adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is very concise ('Equip a specific item')—just four words. It's front-loaded with the core action, but it might be overly terse, potentially under-specifying the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, but more detail could improve clarity without sacrificing efficiency.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'equip' entails (e.g., effects, return values), error handling, or how it fits with siblings. For a tool that likely changes state, more context is needed to guide effective use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (itemName and destination). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints (e.g., valid destination values beyond 'hand'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Equip a specific item' clearly states the verb ('equip') and resource ('item'), but it's vague about what 'equip' means in this context (e.g., in a game, inventory system) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list-inventory' or 'find-item'. It's not tautological but lacks specificity.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the item in inventory), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'list-inventory' for checking items or 'find-item' for locating them. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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

• find-entityC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'nearest' and 'specific type' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if no entity is found. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how 'entity' relates to sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('type' and 'maxDistance') fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying 'entity' types or distance units. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the purpose ('Find the nearest entity of a specific type') which is clear but vague. It specifies the action (find) and resource (entity), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'find-block' or 'find-item', leaving ambiguity about what an 'entity' encompasses in this context.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'find-entity' over 'find-block' or 'find-item', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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

• move-to-positionC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('move') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects (e.g., pathfinding, obstacles), or response behavior. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of a movement tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like success/failure conditions, error handling, or interaction with the environment (e.g., obstacles), leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (x, y, z, range). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain coordinate systems, units, or range implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Move the bot to a specific position' clearly states the action (move) and target (bot), but it's vague about the context (e.g., in a game or simulation) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fly-to' or 'move-in-direction'. It provides a basic purpose without specificity or sibling distinction.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 such as 'fly-to' or 'move-in-direction'. The description implies movement to coordinates but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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

• detect-gamemodeC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('detect') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, or how the detection works. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be more front-loaded with clarity, as 'on game' is ambiguous, slightly reducing its effectiveness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'gamemode' means, what the detection returns, or how it interacts with the game context, making it insufficient for effective use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add param details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool's purpose ('detect the gamemode') and specifies the domain ('on game'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get-position' or 'list-inventory', and the phrase 'on game' is ambiguous about what exactly is being detected.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

• fly-toC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('fly to') but doesn't explain what 'fly' means operationally—e.g., does it bypass obstacles, require specific permissions, have speed/altitude limits, or consume resources? For a movement tool in a game-like context with siblings like 'dig-block' and 'place-block', this omission is significant, as the agent lacks critical context about how the tool behaves beyond the basic action.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary words. However, given the tool's complexity in a game environment with many siblings, it might benefit from slightly more detail to improve usability, but it's not overly verbose or under-specified.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a movement tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like what happens on execution (e.g., does it return success/failure, handle pathfinding, or have side effects?), how it interacts with other tools (e.g., 'get-position' for verification), or environmental constraints. In a server with tools like 'detect-gamemode' and 'place-block', this lack of context makes it harder for an agent to use the tool effectively and safely.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  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 (X, Y, Z coordinates). The description adds value by specifying that these coordinates define a 'specific position', implying a 3D destination. However, it doesn't provide additional context like coordinate system (e.g., world vs. relative), units, or constraints (e.g., valid ranges), so it doesn't fully compensate for potential gaps, but the schema does the heavy lifting, justifying a baseline above 3.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Make the bot fly to a specific position' clearly states the action (fly to) and target (specific position), but it's somewhat vague about what 'fly' entails compared to other movement tools like 'move-to-position' or 'move-in-direction'. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from these siblings, leaving room for confusion about when to choose flying over other movement methods.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move-to-position' or 'move-in-direction'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the bot needs to be in a flying-capable state), context (e.g., use for 3D navigation vs. 2D), or exclusions (e.g., not for precise block placement). This lack of guidance could lead to misuse in scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate.

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

• dig-blockC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('dig') but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, destroys the block permanently, has rate limits, or what happens if the block is unbreakable. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of a block-digging action with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on outcomes, errors, or side effects, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  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 for x, y, and z coordinates. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as coordinate system details or units, so it meets the baseline of 3.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('dig') and target ('a block at the specified position'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'find-block' or 'place-block', which prevents a score of 5.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find-block' for locating blocks or 'place-block' for placing them. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing to be near the block or having the right tool equipped.

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

• find-blockC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't explain how it works—whether it searches in all directions, what 'nearest' means (e.g., Euclidean distance), what happens if no block is found, or if there are performance implications. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core functionality, making it easy to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of a search operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., coordinates, success/failure), error conditions, or behavioral details, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('blockType' and 'maxDistance') with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of block types or context for distance units, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Find') and target ('nearest block of a specific type'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'find-entity' or 'find-item', which also search for nearby objects, so it doesn't fully distinguish its specific domain.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to similar tools like 'find-entity' or 'detect-gamemode' in the sibling list.

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

• find-itemC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'finds' an item but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns the first match, all matches, error handling if not found, or if it requires the bot to have inventory access. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with mutation potential.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'find' means operationally (e.g., returns item details, location in inventory, or just existence), leaving the agent uncertain about behavior and outcomes.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'nameOrType' as 'Name or type of item to find'. The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, such as examples or clarification on 'type' versus 'name'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('find') and target ('specific item in the bot's inventory'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-inventory' or 'find-block', which would be needed for a perfect score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-inventory' (which might list all items) or 'find-block' (which searches in the world). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions for usage.

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

• get-block-infoC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 it 'gets information', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what information is returned (e.g., block type, properties), whether it requires specific permissions, or if it has side effects like triggering events. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and earns its place by clearly conveying the core action.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (a read operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is retrieved (e.g., block type, metadata) or the return format, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior and output.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for x, y, and z as coordinates. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'at the specified position', which is implied by the parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('Get information about') and resource ('a block'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'find-block' or 'detect-gamemode', which might have overlapping functionality in a Minecraft-like context, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'find-block' or 'list-inventory'. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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

• jumpC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral information. It states the action but doesn't disclose what happens (e.g., jump height, duration, whether it's a one-time action or continuous, if it requires specific permissions or has side effects). This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely concise with 'Make the bot jump'—a single, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the jump entails (e.g., mechanics, outcome, or return values), leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior in this Minecraft context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate here, earning a baseline score of 4 for matching the schema's completeness.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Make the bot jump' clearly states the action (verb 'jump') but doesn't specify what 'the bot' refers to in this Minecraft context, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'fly-to' or 'move-in-direction'. It's vague about the exact nature of the jump action.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 like 'fly-to' or 'move-to-position'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the bot needs to be on ground), context (e.g., for navigation or combat), or exclusions.

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

• move-in-directionC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 ('Move the bot') but doesn't clarify what 'move' entails (e.g., walking, flying, teleporting), whether it's instantaneous or gradual, if it requires specific permissions or game modes, or what happens on failure (e.g., hitting an obstacle). For a movement tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Move the bot') and specifies key details ('in a specific direction for a duration') without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly. No structural issues or redundancy are present.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of a movement action in a game-like context (implied by sibling tools like 'dig-block'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., how movement interacts with the environment), error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('direction' and 'duration') well-documented in the schema (including enum values and default). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying direction and duration are used together, but doesn't provide additional context like unit explanations or practical examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Move the bot') and specifies the resource/scope ('in a specific direction for a duration'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'move-to-position' (which uses coordinates) and 'fly-to' (which implies flying to a location), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move-to-position' or 'fly-to'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the bot needs to be on ground), exclusions, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from context alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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

• place-blockC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Place a block' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, consumes inventory items, has cooldowns, or what happens if placement fails (e.g., obstructed location). This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple placement operation and front-loads the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after placement (success/failure indicators), inventory implications, or game mechanics constraints. Given the complexity of block placement in gaming contexts, more behavioral context is needed for effective agent use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, providing complete documentation for all parameters (x, y, z coordinates and faceDirection with enum values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage or constraints.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('place') and resource ('block') with a specific location constraint ('at the specified position'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'dig-block' or 'get-block-info' that also involve blocks, which prevents a perfect score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dig-block' (for removal) or 'get-block-info' (for inspection). It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing a block in inventory or being in a game mode that allows building, leaving the agent with insufficient context for appropriate tool selection.

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

• send-chatC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'in-game' context but fails to address critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if there are rate limits, what happens if the message fails to send, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a mutation tool (sending a message implies a write operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after sending, potential errors, or the game context needed. The description should provide more complete guidance given the tool's complexity and lack of structured data.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'message' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as message length limits or content restrictions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('send') and target ('a chat message in-game'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from siblings, but none of the listed sibling tools appear to be chat-related alternatives, so this is adequate.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any contextual prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios or limitations.

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

• get-positionB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 tool retrieves position but doesn't specify what 'position' entails (e.g., coordinates, orientation), whether it's real-time or cached, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., format of position data) or behavioral context, which would be helpful despite the low complexity. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information beyond the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current position of the bot'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'move-to-position' or 'fly-to', which are related to position manipulation rather than retrieval.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., use for navigation checks), or exclusions (e.g., not for movement). With siblings like 'move-to-position' and 'fly-to', this lack of differentiation is a notable gap.

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

• list-inventoryB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'List all items' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how results are formatted, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('List all items') and efficiently conveys the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. For a basic list operation, this might suffice, but it leaves gaps in understanding how to interpret results.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly doesn't mention any. Baseline is 4 for tools with no parameters.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('items in the bot's inventory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'find-item' or 'equip-item', which might also involve inventory operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find-item' or 'equip-item'. It simply states what the tool does without any context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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