ai_nav_rebuild

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It only says 'Rebuild navigation data' without disclosing potential side effects, performance costs, or whether this invalidates existing nav data. The parenthetical command reference adds a little clarity but not behavioral depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It states the action, target, scope, and an equivalent console command in a compact format.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, so the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks information about prerequisites, side effects, or what happens after rebuild. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context about the rebuild's impact would improve completeness.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed since the schema is empty and there is nothing to document.

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 a specific action ('Rebuild') and target resource ('navigation data in the loaded level'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like project_index_rebuild by explicitly focusing on navigation data within the level.

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?

The description implies usage context by mentioning 'in the loaded level,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Basic context is present but no clear guidance.

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