Move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well by detailing step distance, timing, rotation, and the relationship to shooting direction. It does not mention edge cases like obstacles or boundaries, but core behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences, tightly packed with relevant behavioral details. There is no redundant or extraneous wording.

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?

The description provides enough context for a simple movement action, including timing, distance, and interaction with shooting direction. It lacks only minor environmental details such as collision or boundary behavior, which are not essential for basic usage.

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 schema documents holdMs with units and bounds, and direction has an enum, so both parameters are reasonably clear. The description adds context for direction by linking it to player orientation and shooting, but it does not deeply elaborate on how holdMs affects movement 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: moving the player in one direction for a short duration. It also specifies the movement cadence and that the player rotates to face the chosen direction, making the action unambiguous.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of sibling tools. Usage is implied rather than directly guided, though the movement semantics are clear enough for basic selection.

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