navigate

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description must carry the load; it usefully points to `state` and `map` as sources of valid ids. It does not disclose what happens after navigation (does it wait for the screen to load?), what occurs with an invalid id, or whether the current screen state is lost.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the action, followed by a tight parenthetical of examples and cross-references. No filler, and the most important fact (what `to` accepts) comes first.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the main gap an agent would hit — where valid ids come from — is covered via `state` and `map`. Only the post-navigation behavior (loading/awaiting) is left unstated.

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 0% with a single opaque `to` parameter, so the description must compensate — and it does, enumerating concrete example ids ('rcp-fe-lol-collections', 'rcp-fe-lol-loot', 'home'...) and the two identifier namespaces. It stops short of saying whether ids are case-sensitive or how the two namespaces are distinguished.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Goes to a screen') and immediately clarifies the kind of identifier it consumes, which distinguishes it from generic click/hover tools. Lacks explicit naming of siblings it replaces, so not a 5.

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?

Implies direct navigation using either a Riot nav tab id or a crawl-map screen id, and points at `state` and `map` for valid values. However, it never states when to prefer this over clicking through the UI, nor any preconditions or failure behavior.

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