shoot_at

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: execution is tick-by-tick by the mod, firing is time-bounded, and it consumes real weapons/ammo. It omits failure modes, range/line-of-sight constraints, whether the agent must be equipped, and what happens when ammo runs out mid-duration.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and duration, followed by a caveat that genuinely earns its place. The 'Aim/shoot' slash phrasing is slightly informal but costs nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the core mechanics (tick execution, ammo use, duration) are covered. Still, for a combat primitive with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented nested position parameter, the description should say more about requirements and failure conditions.

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 0% with two parameters, one of which is a nested position object with unconstrained numeric properties (no x/y keys documented). The description only loosely gestures at 'bounded duration' for seconds and 'aim at' for position; it does not clarify the coordinate shape or what the seconds default of 2 means in practice.

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?

States a specific verb pair (aim/shoot), the resource consumed (real weapons/ammo), and the temporal scope (bounded duration, executed per tick). It is clearly distinguishable from movement/mining/crafting siblings, though it does not explicitly name what it is not.

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?

Usage is implied by 'aim/shoot' at a position, and the second sentence sets a negative expectation by warning this is not reliable autonomous combat. However, it gives no positive when-to-use conditions, no prerequisites (weapon equipped, ammo available, line of sight), and no mention of cancel_action for stopping.

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