Knowledge: docs, wiki and space context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The description does add value beyond annotations by disclosing the return shape ('matching passages/pages with their source path') and the Space access guard, which is not in the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the capability before the routing and return details; little waste. The 'Read-only' sentence duplicates an annotation and is the one element that does not earn its place, keeping it below a 5.

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 complex eight-action tool with no output schema, the description gives the return format and the action-selection cues, while the action enum carries the per-operation detail (including the guard on space_read). An agent has enough to select and call correctly, though a brief note on pagination/limit behavior would close the remaining gap.

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 100%, and each parameter's schema entry already documents which actions consume it via 'Used by:'. The description's hint ('pass a path to read_wiki_page, or a Space id to the space_* actions') only restates that mapping at a coarser granularity, so baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb pair and resource ('Search and read NAVIG's local knowledge') and enumerates the three content types: product documentation, wiki pages, and Space-linked files. It also names the sibling tools it is not (navig_recall, navig_fleet), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit routing is given for two alternatives: navig_recall 'for what was said or decided earlier' and navig_fleet 'for infrastructure inventory'. That is clear when-to-use/when-not guidance. It stops short of covering the remaining siblings (navig_web, navig_memory), so it is not fully exhaustive.

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