navmesh_find_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior (ordered waypoints or empty array) and the algorithm (A*). However, it does not mention what happens if the navmesh is not loaded, if points are out of bounds, or any error conditions. For a read-only query tool, it is moderately transparent but has gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and result. No wasted words; every phrase adds meaning (A*, loaded navmesh, return type).

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 straightforward pathfinding tool with three simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the input type, and the return format. It does not detail error handling or edge cases, but these are not critical for basic usage. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in most scenarios.

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 33% (only mapId has a description). The description adds the phrase '2D points' clarifying that from/to are coordinates, but it does not explain coordinate systems, units, or edge cases. It provides marginal value beyond the schema, but not enough to fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 verb ('Find'), the resource ('A* path on a loaded navmesh'), and the output ('ordered array of waypoints or empty array'). It distinguishes from physics raycasts and scene tools, and implicitly from navmesh_nearest_node by focusing on path finding between two points.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'loaded navmesh', which implies the navmesh must be loaded first, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like navmesh_nearest_node. It offers context but no exclusions or alternative routing.

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