nav_query_manage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists operations but does not state whether they are read-only or mutating. For example, 'scaffold_nav_link' and 'scaffold_nav_obstacle' clearly create nodes, but the description does not mention that these operations modify the scene or require specific permissions. Query operations like 'get_nav_map_info' and 'query_path_*' are presumably side-effect-free, but that is not stated. The description also omits any mention of errors, rate limits, or reversibility.

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 well-structured with a clear op list and concise signature lines. It front-loads the purpose and then details each operation efficiently. While five ops with signatures make it longer than a single-purpose tool, it is appropriately organized and avoids fluff. The canonical call shape note is succinct and useful.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-op dispatcher, multiple parameters), the description covers operation selection and parameter signatures sufficiently. However, it lacks behavioral context (side effects, mutation) that is crucial for an agent to invoke safely, especially since no annotations exist. The presence of an output schema (per context) likely explains return values, but the description itself omits any mention of what results look like or error conditions. Thus, while the main usage is covered, fully safe and correct invocation is not fully supported.

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 input schema has 0% coverage for parameters (only op, params, session_id), so the description must compensate. It does so by listing each operation's parameters with defaults and types, e.g., 'query_path_2d(start=[0,0], end=[0,0], optimize=True)'. This tells the agent parameter names, order, and default values. It also clarifies the 'is_3d' flag common to several ops. However, it does not explain the meaning of parameters like 'optimize' or 'bidirectional' beyond their names, and it doesn't cover all possible parameters for each op (e.g., the second 'parent_path' is empty by default). Still, it adds substantial value over the schema.

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 opens with a clear statement: 'Navigation Queries and Spatial Pathfinding Management.' It then enumerates five specific operations with distinct names (query_path_2d, query_path_3d, scaffold_nav_link, scaffold_nav_obstacle, get_nav_map_info) and brief explanations of each. This conveys the tool's purpose well. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like navigation_manage or path_manage, so a note about when to prefer this one is absent.

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 scenarios through the operation names and the overall 'Navigation Queries and Spatial Pathfinding' label. For instance, an agent can infer that query_path_2d is for 2D path queries and scaffold_nav_obstacle for creating obstacles. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus navigation_manage or other path-related tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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