entity-mount

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It omits search behavior (e.g., maxDistance), failure modes, and side effects, which are critical for an agent to anticipate what happens.

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, direct, and free of filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise without unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin for operational completeness. It doesn't mention that the tool searches for the nearest entity of the given type, any rideability constraints, or what happens if no entity is found, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 100%, so the input schema already explains both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles it.

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 'Mount' and lists concrete examples (horse, boat, minecart), making it unmistakably clear what the tool does. This naturally distinguishes it from siblings like entity-dismount and entity-interact.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as entity-interact or entity-dismount. No prerequisites or contextual hints are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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