minecraft_sleep

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 behavior. It states it will 'find and sleep' but does not reveal failure conditions (e.g., what happens if no bed is nearby), side effects (e.g., advancing time, changing game state), or whether it requires any prerequisites. For a mutating action, this lack of transparency is a notable 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and target in six words, earning its place entirely. There is no redundancy or irrelevant detail, making it highly efficient.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It omits failure handling (e.g., no bed found), any requirements (e.g., proximity), and what happens after sleeping (e.g., time skip). An agent might call it without knowing these caveats. For a mutating action, this is a moderate gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no information to clarify. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none. It also doesn't introduce any misleading parameter-related language.

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 a specific action ('sleep') and resource ('nearby bed'), with an explicit 'find and' prefix that clarifies the tool locates a bed before sleeping. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like minecraft_goto or minecraft_place, which are about movement or placement, not sleeping. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use when you want to sleep, but does not specify prerequisites (e.g., must be in a location with a bed) or when not to use it (e.g., if you need to place a bed first). No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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