cd

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., invalid paths), permissions needed, whether it affects other operations, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action effectively.

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?

Given the tool's mutation nature (changing state), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling or side effects, which are critical for safe usage in a filesystem context.

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 compensate for the undocumented parameter 'path'. It implies 'path' is the target directory but doesn't specify format (absolute vs. relative), constraints (e.g., existence), or examples. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's basic structure.

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 verb ('change') and resource ('current working directory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'pwd' (which shows the current directory) or 'workspace_switch' (which might have similar functionality), but the core action is well-defined.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'workspace_switch' or 'workspace_mount', or when it might be inappropriate (e.g., navigating to non-existent paths). The description assumes context without explicit usage instructions.

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