Interact with an entity

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 communicates that the tool performs a right-click interaction and gives examples of effects (trading, mounting), which provides some transparency. However, it does not mention potential side effects, failure conditions, or prerequisites beyond the entity id, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full behavioral impact.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and examples, with no unnecessary words. The description is immediately scannable and efficient.

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 simple action tool with schema-covered parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states the action, provides examples, and tells the agent where to source the required entity id. It lacks deeper behavioral detail, but that is partially addressed by the examples and covered under transparency.

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 has 100% coverage for its two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable cross-tool context by specifying that entity_id comes from get_nearby_entities, which is not present in the schema. This operational guidance goes beyond the structured field definitions.

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 action ('right-click an entity') and provides concrete examples (open villager trade, mount), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'attack' (left-click) and 'use_item' by focusing on entity right-click interactions.

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 explicitly directs the user to obtain the entity id from get_nearby_entities, giving clear context on a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with alternatives such as 'attack' or 'use_item', so no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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