Walk to coordinates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers: it explains the walking mechanics (looking at the target, holding forward), obstacle handling (jumping 1-block obstacles), the completion condition (within 1.5 blocks horizontally), and cancellation via 'stop'. It does not cover failure modes like unreachable coordinates or pathfinding around taller obstacles.

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 deliver the core action and key behavioral details with zero redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and adds necessary nuances after, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 movement tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the primary behavior, resolution condition, and cancellation mechanism. The schema fills in timeout and speed. Missing explicit handling of unreachable destinations or vertical movement constraints keeps this from a 5.

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 already provides 100% parameter documentation, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond schema: it refers to coordinates as the destination and clarifies the horizontal tolerance (1.5 blocks), but offers no additional insight into speed, player selection, or timeout beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Walk') and identifies the target ('coordinates'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like teleport or look_at. The mention of 'call stop to cancel' further clarifies its role as a continuous movement command.

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 when to use it (physical navigation) and explicitly references the 'stop' sibling for cancellation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like teleport, so there are clear context cues but no explicit exclusions.

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