navigation

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

The description lists actions but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what is obvious (e.g., mutations). Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate it is not read-only and not necessarily destructive, but the description adds no additional context about side effects, permissions, or state changes.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. However, it ends with 'Use help tool for full docs', which indicates incompleteness and relies on external documentation.

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 tool has 8 parameters, a non-trivial output schema, and multiple actions, the description is too brief. It does not explain the output, parameter dependencies, or how actions relate, and defers to the help tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description lists the actions (already in the schema enum) but adds no new semantic meaning for the parameters.

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 the tool is for 'Navigation regions, agents, obstacles' and lists three specific actions (create_region, add_agent, add_obstacle). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'animation' or 'audio'.

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. It briefly mentions actions but does not provide context such as prerequisites, recommended workflows, or when not to use it.

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