minecraft_goto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the agent will 'walk near' a coordinate, leaving unclear whether the movement is blocking, what happens if the destination is unreachable, or whether pathfinding/obstacle handling is involved.

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 and front-loaded, with no filler words. It is slightly too terse to be considered excellent, but it does express the core operation clearly in one sentence.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must provide the operational context. It fails to cover range semantics, completion/failure behavior, or how the agent should interpret the move, leaving meaningful gaps for an AI agent.

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%, but the description does not elaborate on x, y, z, or the optional range. 'World coordinate' broadly maps to x/y/z, yet the range parameter's meaning and default behavior are entirely undocumented at the description level.

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 identifies the action ('Walk') and the resource ('a world coordinate'), making it obvious this is a movement tool. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like minecraft_look or minecraft_follow, though it does not explicitly call out those differences.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as minecraft_follow, minecraft_look, or minecraft_stop. The agent has to infer usage entirely from the tool name and the single phrase, with no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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