navigate

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses mutual exclusivity, error handling (near-miss returns suggestions, moves nothing), coordinate source restrictions, and default values for space and volume.

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 concise with a clear summary, usage paragraph, and well-labeled Args section. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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 no output schema and simple side-effect behavior, the description covers usage, defaults, and error cases. Minor missing detail about visual feedback does not detract significantly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully documents all four parameters with examples, units, and defaults, adding significant value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool moves the crosshair to a named atlas region or explicit coordinates, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like load_atlas and load_volume.

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 specifies that exactly one of region_label or coords must be used, explains behavior for near-misses, and notes coordinate source restrictions. It lacks explicit comparison to alternatives like list_regions but is sufficient for its context.

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