walk_to

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses pathfinding behavior, normal walking speed, and the exploration-radius constraint. However, it omits the async job/queue semantics implied by wait_s, replace, and job-related siblings, leaving a significant behavioral gap.

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?

The description is a single tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and the most important constraint, making it easy to scan and act on.

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 output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. Given the simple movement purpose, the description plus schema cover the essential invocation details, though job/queue behavior is only implied through parameters rather than explained in the tool description.

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 coverage is high (4 of 5 parameters documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, and the undocumented arrive_within parameter is not clarified by the description either.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Walk to a map position') with a resource and method ('game pathfinder at normal walking speed'). It is distinct from obvious siblings like drive_to, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

The description gives a clear precondition: the goal must be on explored ground or within the exploration radius. This implies when walk_to is appropriate, but it never states exclusions or alternatives, such as using drive_to for distant or unreachable targets.

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