spamtitan_navigate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that this is a read-only discovery aid, states what it returns, and clarifies that it does not gate access to other tools. This is meaningful transparency for a simple navigation tool, though it could mention error handling or output format.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and return value; the second adds the crucial 'not a prerequisite' behavioral note. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple, single-parameter discovery tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, how the domain parameter selects content, and that it has no operational side effects or prerequisites. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, and the enum values already provide detailed explanations for each domain. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the phrase 'by domain', so the schema is doing the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a clear verb ('Discover') and resource ('available SpamTitan tools by domain'), and explains the return value: tool names and descriptions. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from tools that perform actual operations by calling itself a 'help/discovery aid' rather than a prerequisite, separating it from the sibling operation tools.

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 makes clear when to use it: to explore tools available for a domain. It also provides an important exclusion: it is not a prerequisite and all tools are callable at any time. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide more detailed guidance on when to prefer this over the actual operation tools.

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