mc_move

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries full weight and does a lot: the 10-second per-call cap, the arrived:false + remaining + hint continuation contract, the auto-pillar side effect that swaps the held item, and the water pathfinding failure with its workaround. It stops short of the permission/authorization or failure modes an agent would want if a call is rejected outright, so it sits just above adequate rather than fully comprehensive.

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?

Structure is strongly front-loaded: mode definitions first, then the time-budget rule, then water and pillar caveats. It is long and the emoji/warning markers plus some restated cautions add bulk, but each block conveys distinct operational information rather than 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 no output schema, the description fills the gap by naming the exact return fields (arrived, remaining, hint, pillaredWith, held) and explaining what to do with them. Combined with the time-budget and water rules, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and handle a partial result.

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 40%, so the description must compensate, and it mostly does: it defines all four mode values and their coordinate requirements (jump needs none, swim without coordinates surfaces only). budgetMs is only indirectly covered via the '10 seconds per call, never exceed 11' rule, and the x/y/z coordinate space (absolute vs relative) is never stated, leaving one real gap.

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 opens with a one-word verb ('移动') but immediately enumerates four concrete modes (walk/fly/jump/swim) with distinct behavior, so the resource and scope are clear. It separates itself from siblings by pointing to mc_dig and mc_act{mode:"break"} as the right tools for other jobs. A first-line summary above the mode list would make it 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?

Every mode carries an explicit selection condition: fly is 'most stable, default in creative', jump is for steps/getting unstuck and needs no coordinates, swim handles water and with no coordinates only surfaces for air. It also states the anti-pattern (pathfinding in water, digging water with mc_dig) and prescribes the repeated-call loop for long distances.

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