follow_player

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about how long the follow persists, whether it is interruptible, distance/stop behavior, permissions, or side effects on concurrent commands. Only the bare action is conveyed.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the substance other dimensions need.

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 not be explained, but with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and no sibling differentiation against 'follow_entity', the definition is too thin for an action tool.

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 0%, so the single 'player_name' parameter is undocumented anywhere. The description does not clarify whether the name must be exact, case-sensitive, or how it resolves against online vs offline players, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Follow a specific player'), so the action is clear in isolation. However, the sibling tool 'follow_entity' exists and the description makes no attempt to distinguish the two, leaving the agent to guess which to use when the target could be either.

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 on when to use this over 'follow_entity' or any other movement sibling, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply asserts what the tool does without saying under what conditions it applies.

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