Summon an entity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default positioning behavior, which is a useful behavioral trait, but does not mention side effects such as world mutation, persistence, or potential failure (e.g., invalid entity type). It gives some context but lacks comprehensive transparency.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action, includes examples, and states the default behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and basic usage but omits details like whether coordinates are absolute or relative, how to specify the player, and what the return value is. This leaves some gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 40% (type and player have descriptions). The description adds meaning by implying x, y, z are optional (via 'or 2 blocks in front of the player by default') and provides example entity types. It does not elaborate on the player parameter beyond the schema, but the compensation for the low-coverage coordinates is helpful.

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 ('spawn') and the resource ('entity'), with concrete examples (zombie, cow, armor_stand). It differentiates from sibling tools like interact_entity or attack by indicating a creation action, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 usage context by noting that coordinates are optional and default to 2 blocks in front of the player, which guides when to omit them. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool performs spawning, so the usage scope is clear.

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