add_page_navigator

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 discloses that the visual is built-in and auto-lists pages, but does not mention whether existing navigators are replaced, how the visual is identified afterward, or any effects of adding it. For a mutation tool, this lacks essential behavioral detail.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place. It avoids fluff and gets directly to what the tool does and its key positioning parameters.

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 add-visual operation with four defaulted parameters, the description covers the core behavior and positioning. However, it lacks details about how the visual integrates with existing visuals, whether it can be customized afterward, and what the agent should know about the 'page' parameter. It's adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 17%, but the description adds meaning by stating that x/y/width/height are for positioning and sizing, which helps interpret the default numeric parameters. It does not explain reportSessionId and only briefly relates to the page parameter, so compensation is partial.

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 adds a built-in PAGE NAVIGATOR visual that auto-lists report pages as navigation buttons. The verb 'Add' plus the specific resource 'PAGE NAVIGATOR visual' makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct from manual button creation.

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 this is for automatically generating page navigation without manual buttons ('no manual buttons needed'), providing context for when to use it. It doesn't name explicit alternatives like add_nav_button or add_bookmark_navigator, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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