follow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses the stop mechanism. It does not say whether following is a persistent state, what happens if the target is offline or on another map, whether it interrupts other actions, or what success looks like.

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, no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the stop instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool it covers purpose, parameter meaning, and cancellation. However, because structured fields provide no behavioral context, it leaves the state/persistence semantics of following unstated, which is a meaningful gap for a state-changing game 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 0% and the schema only labels the field 'Target' with no description. The description compensates well: it explains the accepted identifier forms (name or ID) and the special empty-string value that halts following, which the schema does not convey.

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 and resource ('Follow a player') and clarifies the identifier forms ('by name or ID'). It is unambiguous on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like walk or attack, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives one operational condition ('Pass empty string to stop'), which tells the agent how to cancel, but offers no guidance on when to follow versus walking, attacking, or other movement tools, and no prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explained.

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