navigate_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the direction semantics but does not disclose other behaviors such as whether the tool returns only monitoring locations (vs. all locations), how limit and distance_km interact, or any default behaviors beyond the schema defaults. The description adds some context about direction meanings but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently explains the key direction parameter without unnecessary fluff. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameter details), but it is appropriately sized and earns its place.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains direction but leaves identifier, limit, and distance_km semantics unclear. The tool's complexity (network navigation) warrants more detail about how the parameters interact and what the response contains. The description is not sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional inference.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the direction parameter's enum values in detail (upstream includes tributaries, upstream_main follows main stem), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the semantics of identifier, limit, or distance_km beyond what the schema provides (e.g., what identifier refers to, how distance_km is used). The description partially compensates but not fully.

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 states the tool's purpose: monitoring locations upstream or downstream of a point, following the river network rather than a radius. It specifies the resource (monitoring locations) and the action (navigate along the network), which distinguishes it from radius-based searches. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like find_locations or get_basin, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 explains the core usage context (following the river network) and defines the direction options, which implies when to use this tool (when network topology matters). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like find_locations for radius-based searches. The guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.

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