world_teleport

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explicitly states that when no player is connected, the mod refuses by name, and that this is a stated reason rather than a silent no-op. This is valuable transparency, though it does not cover other side effects or success behavior.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that immediately convey the core purpose and format. It front-loads the essential information and adds a practical cross-reference to world_state without any fluff.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the key parameter and a notable edge case. However, it fails to mention the 'timeout' parameter, which is part of the input schema and could affect invocation. Since an output schema exists, return values are covered, but the missing parameter documentation makes it incomplete.

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 description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'pos' parameter and its format, but completely omits the 'timeout' parameter, leaving its purpose and constraints undocumented. This is a significant gap given the schema provides no help.

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 verb 'Move' and the resource 'player', and specifies the parameter format. It is unambiguous in what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as world_spawn or world_set, relying instead on the generic phrasing.

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 explains that the position format matches world_state, implying it should be used when a position from that tool is available. However, it does not state when to avoid this tool or recommend an alternative, so the usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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