path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the operation is blocking, asynchronous, cancellable, or what state it affects. With an output schema present, some return information is covered elsewhere, but the description should still indicate the nature of the operation (e.g., starts a background process, may be interrupted).

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 a single short sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded but under-specified rather than concise; still, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given the complexity of navigation tools and the rich sibling set, the description is far too sparse. It doesn't explain what "current goal" refers to, how the goal is set, whether pathing is continuous or one-shot, or how to stop it. The output schema may cover returns, but the description leaves critical invocation context missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter documentation is needed or missing.

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 'Start pathing to the current goal' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'path'. It restates the verb without specifying what entity paths, how it interacts with the goal system, or what environment it operates in. It is marginally clearer than the bare name but provides no distinguishing detail from siblings like 'goto_block_type' or 'thisway'.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, no conditions, no exclusions. The sibling list includes many navigation tools (thisway, goal_coordinates, goto_block_type, follow_entity), yet the description offers no differentiation or routing information.

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