Dismount

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the idempotentHint annotation by explicitly stating the no-op behavior when not mounted. It also clarifies the scope ('whatever entity/vehicle') without contradicting the annotations.

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 short sentences, with the first sentence stating the core action and the second providing a safety guarantee. Every word is valuable; no redundant phrasing.

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 zero-parameter, zero-output tool with strong annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description sufficiently covers functionality and edge-case behavior. The tool is simple, and the description fully addresses its use.

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?

With zero parameters, schema coverage is inherently 100%. The baseline is 4, and no parameter explanation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than arguments.

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 'Dismounts whatever entity/vehicle the bot is currently riding' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly differentiating from siblings like minecraft_mount and minecraft_stop. It states exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'Safe to call even if not mounted' provides clear guidance that this tool can be invoked unconditionally, avoiding state checks. It implies when to use it (while riding) and clarifies that no error occurs if not mounted, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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