entity-interact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Right-click/interact' without explaining side effects, failure conditions, whether line-of-sight is required, or what happens when no entity is found. This is insufficient for an interaction that could trigger entity-specific behaviors.

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 a single, short sentence that directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Conciseness is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 large set of overlapping sibling tools (entity-use-item-on, entity-mount, villager-open, block-activate, etc.), the description does not provide enough context to disambiguate. It also omits any description of return behavior or success/failure semantics, which is important since there is no output 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('entityType' and 'maxDistance') having descriptions in the input schema. The tool description itself does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already covers them. Baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description neither adds nor detracts.

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 clear action ('Right-click/interact') and a clear target ('nearest entity'), which gives it a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'entity-use-item-on' or 'villager-open', which also involve interaction with entities.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when to choose it over 'attack-entity' or 'find-entity', or any context about the interaction. This is a complete absence of usage guidance.

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