villager-open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the action but does not address failure conditions (e.g., no villager within maxDistance), potential UI side effects, or whether it requires the player to be idle. This is adequate for a simple action but lacks edge-case transparency.

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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded, conveying the exact purpose with no unnecessary words or repetition. Perfectly sized 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. Missing details like fallback behavior when no villager is found are minor and do not significantly impede understanding or invocation.

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 only parameter, maxDistance, is fully documented in the schema with a description and default value. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's explanation, 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 uses a specific verb ('open') and resource ('trade window with nearest villager'), clearly distinguishing it from trading itself (villager-trade) and other interactions. The scope ('nearest') adds precision without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like villager-trade or entity-interact. The description implies it is the first step for trading but does not explicitly state exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage context unclear.

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