inforcer_navigate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool returns tool names and descriptions, and clarifies it is non-essential and non-gating. This sufficiently signals a read-only discovery behavior, though it does not explicitly say 'read-only' or discuss error cases.

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 two sentences with no filler: the purpose and return value are stated first, followed by a useful clarification about optionality. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a low-complexity, single-parameter discovery tool, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, that results are scoped by domain, and that it is not a prerequisite. The rich enum schema provides detail on each domain, and no output schema is necessary given the description of the return payload.

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%: the single 'domain' parameter is fully documented with an enum and detailed per-value descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond referring to the 'selected domain', so the baseline score of 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 description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Discover available Inforcer tools by domain' and states the return value ('tool names and descriptions'). It clearly differentiates itself from the 23 specific sibling tools by positioning itself as a help/discovery aid rather than a domain operation.

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 provides a clear use case ('Discover available Inforcer tools by domain') and an important workflow rule: 'All tools are callable at any time — this is a help/discovery aid, not a prerequisite.' It does not explicitly name alternatives to skip it for, but the sibling tool list and the 'not a prerequisite' clause implicitly tell an agent when direct calls are appropriate.

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