wiki_navigate

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full load: it discloses that the tree is deterministic (repeatable reads) and quantifies output size per depth (~50/~250/~1000/full raw), which is genuinely useful context. It never states whether navigation is read-only, what permissions principal_id requires, or what happens to include_children=false, leaving mutation risk unaddressed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the depth enumeration earns its space by quantifying output. The jargon stack 'deterministic Merkle-tree Second Brain' takes a moment to parse but is not redundant.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description says nothing about what navigation actually returns (a node? a subtree?), how path is formatted, or the data exposed under principal_id. The depth parameter is well covered, but the remaining three quarters of the interface are left to inference.

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 all parameter meaning must come from the description — and it only explains one of four (depth, with per-value token budgets). The path, principal_id, and include_children parameters receive no explanation of format, default semantics, or behavioral effect.

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 verb 'Navigate' plus the resource 'Merkle-tree Second Brain' gives a clear operation, and the depth enumeration pins down the tool's core variable. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like wiki_search or wiki_crawl_delta, so an agent still has to guess when navigation is preferred over searching.

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?

There is no guidance on when to navigate versus search, crawl, or verify — the sibling set implies those alternatives exist but the description never references them. The depth-token mapping hints at cost/verbosity tradeoffs but doesn't state which situations call for which depth.

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