datto_edr_navigate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the return shape (tool names + descriptions), the domain-scoping of results, and the non-prerequisite nature. Minor gap: it doesn't say whether the listing is filtered by permissions or whether repeated calls are cached/idempotent.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant claim (not a prerequisite) is placed last as a clarifying punch rather than buried. Nothing to cut.

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?

With no output schema, the description does state what is returned (names and descriptions), and annotations cover the safety profile, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. It could be slightly more complete on whether results include parameter hints or just labels, but that is a minor gap for a discovery helper.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the domain enum already enumerates and explains all seven values in detail. The description adds only that the result is scoped to the selected domain, which is marginal beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Discover) and resource (Datto EDR tools) scoped by domain, and explicitly clarifies it returns tool names and descriptions rather than performing any EDR action. That separates it cleanly from the ~35 sibling operation tools without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when-not-to-use it as a gate: 'All tools are callable at any time — this is a help/discovery aid, not a prerequisite.' This directly preempts the common failure mode of an agent wasting a call to 'unlock' other tools, and implicitly routes the agent to direct sibling calls when it already knows the operation.

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