Navigate View

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('Navigate the editor view') but does not elaborate on side effects, animation, or state changes. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, so it is not optimally informative for the agent. A score of 3 reflects adequate structure but missed opportunities.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, 100% schema coverage, output schema present, annotations present), the description combined with the schema is minimally complete. However, it does not specify effects on the editor view (e.g., zoom, selection) or prerequisites for the IDs.

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% (the parameter description matches the tool description). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints or behavior for multiple IDs. Baseline 3 applied.

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 uses the specific verb 'Navigate' and identifies the resource as 'editor view to a page or node(s)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'page_info' and 'node_info' which are informational, and other node manipulation tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context where other tools might be preferred.

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