come

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether this displaces an existing goal, whether it can be cancelled, whether Baritone must be running, or what state it changes — 'head towards' implies ongoing motion with no disclosure of side effects.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though it leaves room for a clause that would have disambiguated it from sibling commands.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for an unannotated state-changing movement command the description omits prerequisites, interaction with other movement tools, and whether the goal persists or is cancellable.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the description correctly implies the camera direction is the implicit input. Baseline 4 applies since there are no parameters to document.

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 gives a concrete verb and object ('head towards your camera') for an otherwise opaque name like 'come'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings such as 'thisway', 'follow_player', or 'goto_block_type', which an agent must infer are different.

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 statement of when to use this rather than 'thisway', 'follow_player', or 'path', nor any precondition such as Baritone being active. The agent is left to guess 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.