nav_describe_agent_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Describe' implies a read-only inspection operation, which is useful, and the KB reference points to where more context is available. However, it doesn't disclose the return format, whether it reflects live project state, or any side effects. The example showing a zero-argument call is helpful but minimal.

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 compact: one purpose sentence, a KB pointer, and a one-line example. It is front-loaded with the purpose and has no filler. The KB reference adds value without bloating the text; the example is slightly redundant with the purpose but reinforces the zero-argument signature.

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?

For a zero-parameter describe tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gap is that it doesn't explain what 'nav helper counts' refers to or how the returned overview is structured, though the KB link and output schema partially cover this. It's adequate for invoking the tool but leaves the agent to discover the exact output shape from the schema or KB.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input surface. The description's example `nav_describe_agent_settings()` correctly demonstrates that no arguments are required, which adds a small but useful confirmation beyond the empty schema. Per the rubric, 0 params with baseline 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Describe') with a clear resource: supported navigation agents, nav data actors, and nav helper counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like setup_navmesh or nav_create_link_proxy, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling it is not.

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 implies this is used when the agent needs an overview of navigation agent configuration rather than modifying it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like setup_navmesh, nav_create_link_proxy, or place_navmesh_bounds_volume. The KB reference provides some context but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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