navigate_guided

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the algorithm (shortest-path), the heuristic mode, and a return shape with a 'found' flag, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about permissions, read-only nature, failure modes, or the cost of 'semantic_similarity' (likely expensive), leaving gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 core action, then a clean Args/Returns structure. Every line carries information, though the Returns block partially duplicates the existing output schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, yet the description is otherwise complete enough to invoke the tool: required params, heuristic values, and defaults are covered. The only real gap is the undocumented expand_composites parameter and the absent sibling differentiation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does well: it documents diagram_id, start_node, goal_node, and enumerates heuristic values ('distance', 'reward', 'semantic_similarity') with a stated default that the schema does not express as an enum. It omits expand_composites entirely, so it is not fully compensating for 5 parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find guided path from start to goal node') and names the underlying approach (shortest-path algorithm). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling navigate_breadth_first or explains what 'guided' adds over a plain traversal.

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 lists heuristic choices, which implies a use case, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions the obvious alternative navigate_breadth_first or analyze_reachability. The agent is left to infer selection from the name alone.

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