View Nearby Entities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are ordered 'closest first' and the type_filter semantics ('mob' means non-hostile). It doesn't introduce additional unstated side effects.

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 one-sentence overview, a compact args list, and a returns line. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete: it explains purpose, parameters, and return format. With annotations providing safety context and no output schema, nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains both parameters: radius with range and default, and type_filter with each enum value and special meaning for 'mob'. This goes far beyond the bare 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 function: 'Lists players, mobs, and other entities near the bot, closest first.' This uses a specific verb ('Lists') with a clear resource ('entities') and scope ('near the bot'). It also differentiates from siblings like get_nearby_blocks (blocks vs entities) and list_players (global vs nearby).

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 implies when to use this tool: when the bot needs awareness of entities around it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use list_players for all players'). This provides clear context but misses explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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