Toggle sneaking

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 states the core behavior (enable/disable sneaking) but does not mention reversibility, state persistence, or any conditions (e.g., whether sneaking stops when moving). The description is not misleading, but lacks depth in explaining edge cases. A basic toggling operation is transparent enough to warrant a 3.

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, clear sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted information or unnecessary elaboration. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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, the schema fully documents the two parameters, and the description states the purpose. No output schema is needed for a toggle operation. The description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly. A minor gap is the lack of mention of side effects or prerequisites, but these are not critical for such a basic action.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'player' and 'enabled' fully described in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no extra value.

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: 'Enable or disable sneaking (crouching) for the player.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'sprint' or 'jump'. The title 'Toggle sneaking' reinforces the purpose, but the description adds clarity by specifying enable/disable behavior.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that sneaking might interact with sprinting or other movement actions. The usage is only implied by the name and description, with no explicit when/when-not or alternative references.

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