Look at a position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'instant' nature of the rotation, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether this affects movement controls, what happens if the player is not online, or any error conditions). For a simple view rotation, this is adequate but not extensive, meriting a midpoint score.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and target. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or tangential information.

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 and the description adequately explains its core function. With no output schema or annotations, a bit more detail could be added (e.g., what happens if no player is online or if the coordinates are invalid), but the description covers the essential behavior. Given the tool's low complexity, this is nearly complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the detail that the coordinates are 'block or entity position,' which gives slightly more semantic context than the raw coordinate labels. However, this is a minor addition and does not substantially enrich the parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('rotate'), the resource ('the player's view'), and the target ('the given block or entity position'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like move_to or teleport by focusing solely on changing the viewing direction rather than the player's position.

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 gives clear context: use this when you want the player to face a specific position without moving. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the single-purpose phrasing makes the usage obvious. A score of 4 is appropriate as it clearly communicates the intended scenario without needing exclusions.

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