attack_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'attack' without explaining consequences, whether the attack is continuous or a single hit, damage dealt, or how it can be stopped. This is a significant gap for an action that could be destructive or persistent.

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 extremely concise, using four words with no unnecessary filler. It is front-loaded and immediately comprehensible, though its brevity may omit necessary behavioral context.

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 has a simple schema and no output schema, so the description must provide sufficient context. However, it omits key behavioral details such as the nature of the attack (single vs. continuous), range, and the existence of 'stop_attack' as a counterpart. The description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand how to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes 'entityType' with examples. The description adds the qualifier 'nearby', which implies range limitation, but does not add meaningful syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Attack' with the resource 'nearby entity', clearly stating the tool's action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'dig_block' and 'place_block', though it doesn't differentiate from the complementary 'stop_attack'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, like needing to be in range or having a weapon, nor does it note that 'stop_attack' can halt an ongoing attack. The context is implied but not explicit.

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