moveControl

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 does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether movement is continuous, if it can be interrupted, or how it interacts with other actions like sneaking. This is insufficient for a control tool.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks sufficient detail to be highly informative. It is not verbose, but it could be more structured with additional context.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain the behavior after the command (e.g., does the player move continuously for the duration?). It omits important details like whether the action is instantaneous or sustained, making it incomplete for an action control 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 100%, with both 'action' and 'duration' having descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Control the player with basic movement commands,' which clearly indicates the tool's purpose of moving the player. The enum of actions (forward, back, etc.) further specifies the scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'moveTo' (which likely moves to coordinates) and 'lookAt' (view control).

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 like 'moveTo' or when not to use it. It lacks context for selection, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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