find_page_navigations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cache-only behavior (no API calls) and describes what the output contains (source page, trigger, disabled status, passed parameters). This is useful beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover potential edge cases like missing page or error handling.

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 only two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a critical usage note. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 cache-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it returns, and the required prerequisite (sync_project). It could mention parameter requirements, but the schema covers those. Overall, it is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond referring to 'a given page' which maps to pageName. The baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb and resource: 'Find all actions that navigate to a given page' with specific details on output (source page, trigger, disabled status, passed parameters). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pages or find_component_usages that serve different purposes.

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 provides explicit usage context by stating 'Cache-only, no API calls' and 'Run sync_project first', which sets expectations for when to invoke it. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the prerequisite and cache behavior give clear situational guidance.

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