followEntity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the tool continuously follows, stops when the entity moves out of range, or requires line of sight. The bare description 'Follow a specific entity' provides no such transparency, leaving critical behavioral details unspecified.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices necessary context for brevity. While concise, it omits behavioral details and usage context that are essential for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The structure is acceptable but not optimal.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain what 'follow' entails operationally (e.g., continuous movement, distance maintenance, stopping conditions). Additional context is needed for reliable use.

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%, with both 'entityId' and 'distance' having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. No improvement or degradation is warranted.

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 'Follow a specific entity' clearly states the verb ('Follow') and the resource ('entity'), making the purpose immediately understandable. While it could be more specific about the nature of following (e.g., continuous movement), it effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'moveTo' or 'lookAt' by implying sustained tracking.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions for use, or scenarios where another tool (e.g., 'moveTo') might be more appropriate. This lack of context forces the agent to rely solely on the tool name for decision-making.

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