goto

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pathfinding' as a method, but does not disclose whether the operation is blocking, how errors are handled (e.g., unreachable coordinates), or if movement can be interrupted. For a state-changing operation, this is insufficient.

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, concise sentence that includes the verb, target, and method. It contains no redundant phrases and is easy to parse.

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?

Despite a simple parameter set, the lack of behavioral details (e.g., return value, asynchronous behavior, failure modes) makes the description incomplete, especially given no annotations or output schema. An agent may not know how to handle edge cases like pathfinding failure.

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 schema descriptions for x, y, and z are simple ('X coordinate', etc.) and cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add further meaning about coordinate systems, units, or ranges, so it neither improves nor detracts.

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 purpose: to navigate the bot to specific coordinates using pathfinding. It identifies the verb ('navigate'), the resource ('the bot'), and the destination ('specific coordinates'), distinguishing it from sibling movement tools like 'jump' or 'look_at'.

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 implies usage when the bot needs to move to exact coordinates, as opposed to following a player or stopping movement. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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