get_navigation_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: it operates on the editor world only, and a world lacking a navigation system returns zeros rather than raising an error. That error-behavior disclosure is real value beyond the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, followed by a returns listing. The Returns line partially repeats the field names already enumerated in the first sentence, a minor redundancy, but the description is short and well-ordered.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the returned fields (nav_system_present, nav_data_count, supported_agent_count, supported_agents, is_navigation_dirty, success), which is sufficient for a zero-parameter read tool. Combined with the zero-case behavior, an agent has what it needs.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (the editor world's navigation system state) and enumerates the exact fields returned, plus a scope qualifier ('never PIE'). It is clear against most siblings, though it does not distinguish itself from the nearby get_navigation_data, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 scope note '(never PIE)' and 'read-only' imply when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit routing guidance among the navigation siblings (get_navigation_data, diagnose_navmesh, rebuild_navigation). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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