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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Does not modify the project.' It adds valuable behavioral context: requirement for an open window, fail-fast behavior with guidance, and the per-targetType semantics (e.g., file naming conventions and the need for example files). This exceeds the annotation baseline and covers most behavioral aspects, though it does not detail edge-case failure modes for invalid paths or missing examples beyond the general 'fails fast' statement.

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 relatively long but highly information-dense; every sentence contributes to operational clarity. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, then systematically explains each targetType. While not maximally concise, it avoids fluff and is well-structured.

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 three distinct modes, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage, the description is complete for an agent to call it correctly. It covers all required parameters, explains file naming conventions, prerequisites, failure behavior, and how it relates to screenshot_preview. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 only 50% (name and path have descriptions; projectId and targetType do not). The description compensates thoroughly: it explains targetType values, the exact format for name (matching list_files), the path format with query/hash, and the mapping from file names to routes. It also clarifies that name is used differently for component vs page-examples. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 verb ('navigate') and resource ('the user's OPEN Floot preview'), and clearly distinguishes three targetType modes (page, component, page-examples), making it easy to understand what the tool does and how it differs from alternatives. It also names the pairing with screenshot_preview, clarifying its role.

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 clear usage context: use it to show the user what was built, and pair with screenshot_preview to see the result. It notes the prerequisite that a Floot window must be open and that it fails fast with guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for similar navigation (though few exist in the sibling list), so it falls just short of exhaustive guidance.

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