Codecraft provides 9 tools with consistent naming (verb_noun pattern: check_, get_, lookup_, validate_, review_) and reasonable descriptions (50-100 chars each). All tools are READ_ONLY with clear risk classification. However, parameter descriptions are minimal (10-30 chars), lacking actionable constraints, format guidance, and dependency hints. Output schemas are not documented in the provided source. Error handling and recovery guidance are absent. Tool composition is sound (each does one thing), but descriptions do not explain WHEN to use each tool vs. alternatives (e.g., when to call validate_json vs validate_command). No evidence of pagination, result limits, or structured output documentation.

• Expand parameter descriptions to include format, valid range, and error cases. E.g., 'version: Game version (format: X.Y.Z or X.Y.Z.W, e.g., 1.26.40 or 1.26.40.5). Defaults to latest. Invalid versions return error with available versions.'
• Document output schemas for each tool. Specify what fields are returned, their types, and which fields are safe to chain to downstream tools. E.g., 'Returns {valid: boolean, errors: [{line: number, message: string}], schema_version: string}'.
• Add error classification and recovery guidance. E.g., 'If version not found, call get_version_info() to list available versions. If validation fails, the errors array contains line numbers and messages for LLM self-correction.'
• Clarify tool selection criteria in descriptions. E.g., 'Use validate_json for .json files; use validate_command for /execute commands; use validate_script for .js behavior packs.'
• If tools return lists, add limit and offset/cursor parameters and document max result size. E.g., 'Returns up to 50 matches; use offset for pagination.'