follow_player

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses two important non-obvious traits: persistence and the fact that it replaces current jobs. It does not mention failure modes or null-player behavior, but core side effects are covered.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The persistence label is front-loadedhol and the job-replacement warning is stated immediately after the core behavior.

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?

The description captures the essential purpose and the main side effect, and an output schema exists so return-value detail is not needed. However, the ambiguous nullable player parameter and lack of guidance on what happens with no arguments leave a meaningful gap for an agent invoking the 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%, and the description adds little beyond the parameter names. 'Follow a player at a distance' loosely maps player and distance to their roles, but it does not explain the nullable player default, distance bounds, or how the distance value is used.

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 and resource: 'follow a player at a distance until cancelled.' The phrase 'Persistent job' immediately distinguishes it from one-shot movement siblings like walk_to or drive_to.

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?

Gives clear invocation context: this is a persistent job that runs until cancelled and replaces current jobs. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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