Look At Coordinates

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

Annotations already declare openWorld, idempotent, not destructive, and not read-only. The description adds valuable context beyond that: 'Purely cosmetic/aiming — doesn't move the bot.' This clarifies the effect on position, which is critical for a bot control tool. It does not contradict annotations. It doesn't disclose other potential side effects but none seem relevant for this simple action.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place: action, effect ('doesn't move'), use cases. No redundancy or 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?

The tool is simple, but the description covers purpose, behavioral effect, and use cases. The lack of output schema is fine. The main gap is parameter semantics, which are not explained, but the description's clarity about 'point' and the typical context make it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It also aligns well with sibling tools context.

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 has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate for x, y, z. The phrase 'face a specific point' implies x, y, z are coordinates of that point, but it gives no details about coordinate system, units, or whether they are absolute. This is minimal but adequate given the tool's simplicity and the conventional meaning of x/y/z in a game context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Turns') and resource ('bot's head/body') to clearly state the action. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it aims at a point rather than moving, which sets it apart from movement tools and even minecraft_look_direction (which likely sets a direction). The purpose is 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Useful before minecraft_attack_entity or minecraft_activate_block for precision.' It also clarifies what it does NOT do ('doesn't move the bot'), implying when not to use it (for movement). However, it does not mention alternatives like minecraft_look_direction or explicitly state exclusions beyond movement.

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