Look In Compass Direction

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'Purely cosmetic/aiming — does not move the bot' clarifies the nature of the state change and distinguishes it from movement tools. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and idempotent, and the description complements these without contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word contributes to understanding. It efficiently covers what the tool does and a key non-movement caveat without wasted text.

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 a single enum parameter and no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. Combined with annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), it gives the agent all needed information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The description repeats the enum values from the schema (north/south/east/west, up/down) but adds no additional meaning beyond what the enum itself provides. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description does not fully compensate, but the parameter is simple and self-explanatory, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb ('turns') and resource ('the bot'), and specifies the exact scope (compass directions and up/down). It also distinguishes from sibling tool minecraft_look_at by emphasizing compass direction rather than looking at a specific target.

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 the tool: it's for cosmetic aiming and explicitly states it does not move the bot, implying it's not for movement. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide a 'when not to use' scenario beyond 'does not move', so it falls short of a 5.

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