ue_nav_query_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the random reachable nature and units (centimetri), but does not describe the return value, failure modes (e.g., if no point is found), or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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: a single imperative sentence followed by a brief argument list. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the key behavior is front-loaded. No waste.

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?

As a simple query tool, the description covers the core action and arguments, but it lacks return-value information, which is essential given there is no output schema. It also does not discuss edge cases or prerequisites. Overall, it is adequate for basic understanding but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 input schema provides only types and a default, with 0% parameter descriptions. The description compensates by explaining that 'origin' is a dict of x,y,z in centimeters and that 'radius' is in centimeters, adding meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema. It does not, however, elaborate on radius's default or acceptable ranges.

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 function: 'Trova un punto raggiungibile a caso sul navmesh entro un raggio da un'origine' (find a random reachable point on the navmesh within a radius from an origin). It specifies a unique verb (find), resource (navmesh point), and scope (radius from origin), distinguishing it from siblings like ue_nav_find_path and ue_nav_rebuild.

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 its usage context: when a random reachable navmesh point is needed. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the unique 'random' and 'reachable' qualifiers provide clear context that differentiates it from pathfinding or rebuilding tools. No explicit alternatives are stated, but the function is self-evident.

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