mc_look

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls well short. It does not say whether rotation is applied instantly or interpolated, what happens if both yaw and dyaw (or pitch and dpitch) are provided, what occurs if no parameters are passed, or whether the server clamps/normalizes angles.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the mode split is stated before the parameter names so the reader gets structure immediately.

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 four-optional-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the definition gives the essential semantics but leaves key operational questions unanswered (mutual exclusivity of absolute/relative fields, default behavior on empty call, result/confirmation). It is minimally viable rather than 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% and each parameter already documents itself ('Absolute yaw', 'Relative yaw change', pitch range), so the baseline is 3. The description only adds the unit (degrees) and the pairing logic, both largely restatements of the schema, without clarifying precedence when both forms are supplied.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Set player rotation') and immediately distinguishes the two operating modes (absolute yaw/pitch vs relative dyaw/dpitch) including units. It is clear what the tool does, though it never differentiates itself from look-adjacent siblings like mc_move or mc_goto.

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?

Usage is only implied: the parenthetical mode breakdown hints that an agent should choose absolute mode to face a known heading and relative mode to nudge from the current heading. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no guidance on mixing absolute and relative fields, and no reference to alternatives.

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