minecraft_attack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool moves the agent toward the target and strikes it, and that the target must be nearby and visible. It does not disclose whether the attack repeats, what happens if the target is invalid, or any combat side effects.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and target constraint. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the essentials: action, target, and proximity/visibility constraints. It lacks details about attack frequency, outcome reporting, or failure behavior, which an agent might need to handle unexpected cases, but the basic invocation is clear.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It partially does by indicating the 'target' parameter is the entity's name, but it does not specify the format of the name (e.g., username vs. mob name) or any naming conventions.

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 uses specific verbs ('approach and strike') and identifies the resource ('nearby visible entity by name'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like minecraft_dig (blocks) and minecraft_follow (non-combat movement).

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 implied rather than explicit: the tool is clearly for attacking a visible nearby entity when that action is needed. However, the description does not mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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