navigate_to

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the critical limitation (non-compatibility with GoRouter/custom routers) and the underlying navigation API (pushNamed), which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on failure (e.g., if the route doesn't exist), or whether navigation is awaited or fire-and-forget, leaving some behavioral 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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the action, the second delivers a critical constraint plus a concrete fallback. Every word earns its place, and the most important caveat (GoRouter incompatibility) is front-loaded in the NOTE.

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 single-parameter navigation tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essential context: what it does, its key limitation, and the fallback approach. It doesn't describe return behavior or failure modes, but given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema guaranteed), what's provided is reasonably complete. It could mention what happens if the route doesn't exist, but this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% so the schema documents the single 'route' parameter fully. The description adds the implementation context (named route, pushNamed semantics) which gives meaning to the param beyond 'Named route to navigate to', but doesn't add format details like whether route strings need leading slashes or pattern conventions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Pushes a named route') using a specific mechanism (Navigator.pushNamed), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like go_back or get_current_route, but the named-push behavior and the explicit GoRouter exclusion give strong contextual distinction.

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 explicitly states when NOT to use this tool ('Does NOT work with GoRouter or other custom routers') and provides a clear alternative ('use tap() to navigate via on-screen elements instead'). This gives an agent an explicit when/when-not and names a specific alternative tool, which is exactly what this dimension rewards.

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