Automation: Bay and blocks

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds return-payload context by listing items/specs with slugs, ids, risk, and install state. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or auth, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

Three tightly written sentences front-load purpose, safety, alternative routing, and return shape. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 3-action, 4-parameter read-only catalogue tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies scope, alternative routing, and return contents. Even without an output schema, it tells the agent what to expect back.

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%, and the schema itself documents each action's required parameters and behavior. The description adds no parameter syntax or mapping beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Browse) and resources (NAVIG Harbor Bay catalogue and installed Blocks), then details the content available including typed inputs, ordered steps, and verify criterion. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool navig_automation_apply by naming it for acquire/run use cases.

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?

Explicitly declares the tool is read-only and tells the agent to use navig_automation_apply instead when acquiring an item or running a block. This provides clear when-to-use and alternative guidance without exclusions.

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