Walk To Coordinates

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing key behavioral traits: pathfinding capabilities (obstacles, stairs, gaps), that it is a blocking call with a 60s timeout, and possible errors (unreachable, timeout, no path). It also specifies the return structure in the absence of an output schema, providing valuable operational context.

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, with two short paragraphs. The main action is front-loaded, returns and errors are clearly separated, and every sentence contributes essential information without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (pathfinding, blocking, timeout, error conditions) and lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return value, error cases, and key behavioral constraints. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect, leaving no critical gaps.

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 only 25% because x, y, z lack descriptions. The description clarifies that they form a 'target position' and the return shows position as {x, y, z}, but it does not specify coordinate origin or units. The 'range' parameter is fully described in the schema, so the description adds minimal extra meaning for that. Some compensation for the low schema coverage exists but not complete.

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 'Paths the bot to a target position using pathfinding', specifying the resource (bot) and action (walk) with a coordinate target. This distinguishes it from sibling movement tools like goto_player and follow_player, making the purpose 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when the agent needs to navigate to specific coordinates, with pathfinding accounting for obstacles. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like goto_player, but the focus on coordinate-based movement and the sibling names imply the distinction. No exclusions are stated.

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