application.navigate

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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false; the description adds meaningful context beyond that: scope, GUI effect, no undo, long-running behavior with waitForCompletion/timeoutSeconds and the fact that a timeout does not cancel work, plus an explicit error list. It does not explain what happens to an in-progress review session when navigating away, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then a one-line constraint, then compact metadata and error lines. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the tool name or filler.

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?

Five parameters, no output schema, but the description covers completion semantics, timeout behavior, undo, and the error surface an agent must handle. Only the state of a currently open review/browser window after navigation is unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a GUI-effect tool.

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 100%, so every parameter including session, timeoutSeconds and waitForCompletion is already documented in the schema. The prose repeats the deck condition rather than adding new meaning such as accepted view-transition combinations or deck name edge cases; the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Navigate the main window to a requested view'), and the deck/ view constraint block further pins down the operation. An agent can tell this changes the GUI view rather than data, distinguishing it from siblings like browser_open or decks_list, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 states a hard rule (deck required for deckOverview/review, prohibited for deckBrowser) which is a parameter constraint rather than a when-to-use rule. It never says when an agent should navigate the UI instead of, say, browsing decks via decks_list or opening a browser, so the choice among siblings is left to inference.

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