attack-entity

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

The description discloses the key behavior of repeated attacking until death, which goes beyond the annotation-free schema. However, it does not mention potential risks or side effects such as attracting other mobs or the agent taking damage, and there are no annotations to fill this gap.

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 one sentence with no extraneous words, front-loaded with the action.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's action, though it does not mention return values. The schema covers parameter details, so the combination is adequate.

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 schema already fully describes both parameters (type and maxDistance) with clear descriptions, including default and behavior when type is omitted. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema's 100% coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'attack' and identifies the resource as 'nearby entity', with the clarifying behavior 'repeatedly until it dies'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like entity-interact or entity-use-item-on.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for attacking/killing entities, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the purpose is unambiguous given the sibling list.

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