follow_player

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'follow' but doesn't explain key behaviors such as whether distance is maintained, how the agent reacts to player movement, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a movement-related tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no verbosity. It front-loads the primary action and object, though it could benefit from one or two additional details without becoming bloated. It earns its place by being concise and focused.

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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It fails to explain return values, behavior under edge cases, or the overall effect of following. The agent is left without enough information to anticipate outcomes.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'playerName' and 'distance' documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema is fully self-explanatory, the 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 'Follow a specific player' uses a clear verb and resource, identifying the action as tracking a player. It distinguishes from siblings like 'goto' (location-based) and 'attack_entity' (combat), though it doesn't elaborate on the specifics of following.

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 like 'goto' or 'get_nearby_entities'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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