List nearby entities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is a read-only listing that returns ids, types, positions, and distances. This is sufficient for a non-mutating tool, though it does not mention potential sorting limits or entity type filtering, leaving small gaps.

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, both informative and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and output fields; the second explains why entity ids are relevant. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 with only two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers what is returned and how to use the results, and the schema fills in parameter defaults and constraints. Minor omissions like output format or entity count are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (player and radius) at 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond repeating the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'List entities near the player (mobs, players, items, ...) with their ids, types, positions and distances.' It identifies the specific resource (nearby entities) and what information is returned, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like attack or interact_entity by framing the output as the source of entity ids.

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 contextual guidance by noting that 'Entity ids are used with attack and interact_entity,' implying this tool should be used when those actions are needed. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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