Navigate View

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds that the tool targets pages or nodes. It does not describe side effects like viewport changes or selection updates, but for a simple navigation action the description plus annotations give a minimally adequate picture.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence conveys the tool's purpose without any filler or redundancy. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 simple navigation tool with a single well-documented parameter, an output schema, and idempotence annotation, the description is largely complete. It falls slightly short only in not offering any usage guidance or mention of what the resulting view change entails.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single 'ids' parameter as 'Array of page or node IDs to navigate to'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond restating this, so it aligns with the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Navigate') with a clear resource ('the editor view') and target ('a page or node(s)'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like node_info or node_transform, which query or modify nodes rather than changing the view.

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 implies its use case: to change the visible editor location to a page or node. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention scenarios where navigation is unnecessary or disallowed.

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