ue_nav_rebuild

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the essential behavioral trait that this is a regeneration operation equivalent to a known console command, and it surfaces the critical precondition about NavMeshBoundsVolume. It does not detail potential side effects, failure modes, or output behavior, but for a zero-parameter rebuild action this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences: the first states the core action and equivalent command, the second gives the necessary setup requirement and a cross-reference to another tool. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, this description is complete: it explains what the tool does, the scope (current level), the equivalent console command, the required precondition, and how to satisfy that precondition using a sibling tool. There are no significant gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to describe beyond the schema. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on prerequisites and action semantics rather than parameter details.

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 'Rigenera il navmesh del livello corrente' (regenerates the current level's navmesh), with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling navigation tools like ue_nav_query_point and ue_nav_find_path by focusing on rebuilding rather than querying or pathfinding.

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?

It provides an explicit prerequisite (at least one NavMeshBoundsVolume) and even directs the user to the appropriate sibling tool (ue_spawn_actor) to place it. It equates the action to the console command RebuildNavigation, giving clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to alternative navigation tools.

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