strata_navigate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well: it states the output (views/explores/fields touched, source_file:source_line citations), and the conditional behavior when ticket is set. It doesn't mention side effects, but the language describes a read/analysis operation.

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 and front-loaded, with the main action in the first line and supporting output details following. A few phrases ('full navigator brief', 'in one call') are slightly promotional but not harmful.

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?

It covers required anchor semantics and the ticket-conditioned output, and an output schema exists so return values don't need detailing. Missing context includes the meaning of the `model` parameter and any guidance on when to choose this over the many sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does clarify `anchor` with allowed value categories and implies `ticket` is optional conditioning the what-to-touch inference, but `model` is left completely unexplained.

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 names a specific action ('Classify... and return') on a specific resource ('ticket anchor'), and enumerates the accepted anchor forms (BQ table, field name, view, explore, .lkml filename). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools.

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?

Use is implied: call it when you have a ticket anchor and need a navigator brief with citations. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling tool is referenced.

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