Follow / Stop Following Player

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that following is continuous and non-blocking, and that it persists until stopped. This goes beyond the safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by explaining the background execution model and stop conditions. It does not contradict 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a single sentence delivers the core function and key difference from a sibling, followed by a second sentence explaining background behavior and stop conditions, then a return type. Every sentence adds value without fluff.

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 tool with continuous background behavior, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, how it differs from alternatives, when it stops, and the return type. It doesn't cover edge cases like what happens if the target player is lost or the bot is obstructed, but the core usage is sufficiently described given the schema and annotations.

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?

Schema description coverage is low (33% with only 'stop' having a description), so the description compensates by explaining the meaning of each parameter in plain language: 'named player' covers username, 'set distance' covers range, and 'stop=true' covers the stop parameter. This adds semantic meaning that helps an agent map natural language to the parameters.

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 function: 'Starts (or stops) continuously following a named player at a set distance.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly contrasts with minecraft_goto_player by noting it does NOT block. This differentiates it from a closely related sibling tool.

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 provides clear usage context: it is non-blocking and runs in the background. It also explains how to stop following (via minecraft_stop or stop=true) and contrasts with minecraft_goto_player, which blocks. While it doesn't explicitly spell out 'when not to use,' the comparison with the alternative gives strong guidance.

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