walk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two useful traits: routing uses A* and the call signals completion or failure via a channel notification, so the agent knows failure is possible. It omits whether the call blocks until arrival, timeout behavior, what happens if the path is blocked, and any permission requirements.

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 mechanism, with the arrival/failure notification as supporting detail. No filler or redundancy.

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 an unannotated, output-schema-less tool with undocumented parameters, the description covers the mechanism and the failure notification but leaves blocking semantics, timeout, and pathing-failure behavior undefined. Adequate to attempt a call, incomplete for predicting its behavior.

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%, so the schema provides only bare integer types for x and y. The description adds only that these are coordinates, with no map context, units, valid bounds, or distinction from other coordinate-bearing siblings.

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?

"Walk to coordinates (x, y)" is a specific verb plus resource, and naming A* pathfinding tells the agent this is a routed movement action rather than teleportation. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like follow or sit, but never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as follow (which is also movement-oriented), nor any prerequisites like needing a valid navigable path or being in a state that permits movement. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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