move-horizontally

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the key limitation that it avoids digging/building, but it does not disclose other important behaviors such as obstacle handling, pathfinding, or failure modes. This is a meaningful but incomplete disclosure.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately follows with the limitation, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity, absence of annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and limitations but lacks information about obstacle handling, error behavior, or explicit alternative suggestions. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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% (each parameter has a description like 'Target X coordinate'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool's function: 'Move the bot toward a target block that is more or less the same height (Y) as the bot.' It specifies the action (move), the subject (bot), the target (block at similar Y), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting it does not dig down or build up.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (target roughly same Y) and an explicit when-not: 'Doesn't dig down (for a low Y target), doesn't build up (for a high Y target), so bad for those.' However, it does not name specific alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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