傳送玩家或實體

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

Annotations already classify this as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description is consistent with that. It adds no extra disclosure about permissions, chunk-loading, or failure modes, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 with the action front-loaded and no filler. Slightly under-specified for the nested destination/mode structure, so not a perfect 5.

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 simple teleport tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the core invocation is understandable. The main gap is lack of routing guidance among teleport-related siblings, and coordinate mode semantics depend entirely on the schema.

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?

The description adds the useful note that target defaults to the executing player and frames the target as a selector, but it largely repeats schema info. With 50% schema coverage, x/y/z are left to inference, though the mode enum in the schema covers coordinate semantics.

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 states a concrete verb (傳送) and resource (selector-specified targets to coordinates), and the title narrows it to players/entities. It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with mc_agent_teleport.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as mc_agent_teleport or mc_agent_move, and no exclusions. The only usage hint is the @s default, which is more parameter-oriented than selection guidance.

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