geck_cell_go_to_exterior

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool drives Cell View's UI controls and performs a viewport/selection navigation, but it does not disclose whether the active cell changes, whether any state is modified, whether Cell View must already be open, or whether this is safe/read-only.

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, clear sentence with no redundant filler. It front-loads the tool's action and mechanism, and every word contributes to understanding.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It lacks preconditions, coordinate semantics, behavior when coordinates are invalid, and any indication of what the Go action does beyond jumping. An output schema exists but cannot compensate for missing usage and parameter context.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It maps 'world-space' to world_space and 'X/Y' to x/y, which is helpful. However, it does not explain coordinate units or valid ranges, and it says nothing about the optional backend parameter.

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 identifies a clear action ('jump to an exterior cell') via a specific mechanism (Cell View's world-space/X/Y/Go controls), and the resource is the exterior cell. It is distinct enough from obvious siblings because it combines world space selection with navigation coordinates, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus related tools like geck_cell_set_world_space or geck_cell_select. The description does not state whether this is the first step in a workflow, whether a Cell View must already be open, or what conditions select this tool over alternatives.

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