Runtime: nodes and missions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description redundantly confirms 'Read-only' but adds genuinely useful context by describing the return shape (ids and state) in the absence of an output schema. It does not mention pagination or the limit default (schema says 20 vs 50, an inconsistency left unexplained).

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, then the sibling routing, then return shape. The final clause ('pass a node_id to trust_score or a mission id to receipt listing') is slightly garbled in mapping parameters to actions, costing it a point, but nothing is padded.

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 5-parameter, 4-action tool with no output schema, the description covers what it reads, the write alternative, and the general return format. It omits the limit/pagination behavior, which the schema documents inconsistently (default 20 vs 'default 50'), leaving a small 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 description coverage is 100%, so the enum's per-action required-parameter notes already document node_id/mission_id/status/limit usage. The description's 'pass a node_id to trust_score or a mission id to receipt listing' largely restates the schema's 'Used by:' annotations rather than adding new semantics, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read NAVIG runtime state') and enumerates the exact entities covered: Nodes, Missions, ExecutionReceipts, TrustScore. This cleanly separates it from navig_runtime_action, which is its write counterpart.

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 names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Use navig_runtime_action to create or advance a Mission.' Combined with the 'Read-only' framing, an agent knows this is the query path and the sibling is the mutation path without further inference.

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