move-horizontally-and-up-using-steps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions mining steps but does not clarify the movement mechanics, how steps are created, failure handling, or whether the player is actually moved. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 only two short sentences, which is concise but under-specified. It does not waste words, but the brevity comes at the expense of essential elaborations on the tool's operation and selection. The text borders on being a slightly expanded restatement of the tool name.

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?

With 4 parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, the actual movement process, when to use this tool over alternatives, or any safety/error implications. This is inadequate for a navigation action in this context.

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%: all four parameters have descriptions, including the nested nextStepPos object with its own properties and explanations. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already provides adequate meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 says 'Mine up multiple steps' and 'Good for going forwards-and-up', which indicates a mining/ascending action, but it does not explicitly state that the tool moves the player horizontally and upward by mining steps. It does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like move-horizontally-by-mining.

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 phrase 'Good for going forwards-and-up' provides a clear scenario where the tool is useful, implying usage when the player needs to ascend diagonally. However, it gives no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or comparison to other movement tools, so the guidance remains mostly implied.

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