navvi_atomic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It declares the tool is a reference (lists tools) and implies non-destructive, read-only behavior. Sufficient for a meta-tool.

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?

Two concise sentences plus an example. Front-loaded with purpose. No waste; each part contributes meaning.

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?

The description adequately explains the tool's role as a reference. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the missing parameter description creates a gap, making it slightly incomplete.

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 one boolean parameter 'enable' with zero description coverage. The description does not mention it, leaving its purpose unclear. Agents may not know what 'enable' does.

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 it is a 'quick reference' that lists atomic browser tools, distinguishing it from sibling tools like navvi_click, navvi_find, etc., which are the actual action tools.

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?

It says 'Call this for a summary of tools and workflow,' providing clear usage context. However, no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, though not critical for a reference tool.

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