ue_nav_find_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that the operation is synchronous and independent of PIE, which is valuable. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of path points) or behavior when no path is found, leaving significant gaps without an output schema.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences to convey purpose, behavioral traits, and parameter structure. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids any filler, every sentence earning 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?

The description gives core information for invocation (coordinates, no PIE, synchronous) but omits return value details and failure scenarios. Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description alone is insufficient for a fully informed agent expecting to handle results or errors gracefully.

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 schema provides only generic object types with additionalProperties, so the description's explicit specification of 'start, end: {"x":.., "y":.., "z":..} in centimetri' is essential. It compensates for the 0% schema coverage by clarifying the coordinate format and units, making parameter usage clear.

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 computes a path on the navmesh between two points ('Calcola un percorso sul navmesh tra due punti'). It uses a specific verb and resource, making the primary purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ue_nav_query_point, though the path-vs-point distinction is implicit.

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 provides useful context by noting that pathfinding is synchronous and does not require PIE to be running ('non serve il PIE in esecuzione'). This helps the agent understand when it can be called. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so it falls short of a full comparison.

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