get_navigation_info

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does (gets info/data) but does not mention if it is read-only, performance implications, or required permissions. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand side effects.

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 very short (one phrase) but lacks structure and additional details. While concise, it misses opportunities to front-load key information like what exactly is returned.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description might be minimally adequate, but in the context of many siblings, it should provide more context about what 'navigation map information' entails.

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 single parameter 'path' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already handles semantics.

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 it retrieves navigation map information and navigation mesh data, which is a specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from related siblings like 'get_collision_info' or 'find_navigation_path', which also deal with navigation data.

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. Given many navigation-related siblings (e.g., 'bake_navigation_mesh', 'setup_navigation_region'), the description offers no direction on selection.

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