Get Portal Navigation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the etag behavioral detail (linking to save operation), which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe return format beyond { navigation, etag } or any pagination/structuring of the tree.

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 a single efficient sentence that communicates the return type and the key behavioral fact (etag needed for saving). No wasted words. It's concise without being under-specified.

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 read tool with one parameter and strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description covers the essentials. However, the 'openWorldHint=true' suggests the tool operates on dynamic data, and the description doesn't explain what 'navigation tree' contains structurally or whether it reflects staged vs published state, which could matter for an agent deciding between get_portal_navigation and get_portal.

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 one parameter (portalRef) is undocumented in both the schema and description. With only 1 parameter and a self-explanatory name (portalRef meaning portal reference), the baseline is moderate. The description adds no meaning beyond what 'portalRef' conveys, so it's a standard 3.

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 clearly states the tool returns the portal navigation tree with navigation and etag fields. The specific verb 'Return' plus the resource 'portal navigation tree' is clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like save_portal_navigation by noting the etag is needed for saving, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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 (get navigation, use etag for saving), which points toward kilango_save_portal_navigation as a paired operation. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no mention of prerequisites like whether the portal must exist or be published, and no exclusion criteria.

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