Find UI Navigation Path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the 'historical' nature of the pathways and the flexibility of matching by description, but does not disclose performance characteristics, result limits, or potential edge cases (e.g., what happens if no path exists). Since annotations cover the primary safety concerns, 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, front-loaded with the key verb and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. It is efficiently structured and immediately understandable.

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 tool's moderate complexity, good annotations, and schema descriptions, the description is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invoke it. It does not describe the return format (e.g., whether it returns a list of steps), but the tool name and description imply this, and the schema provides parameter details. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the inherent clarity of the operation, so a score of 4 is warranted.

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 80% (4/5 params have descriptions), which exceeds the high-coverage threshold. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it reinforces that from_state_id corresponds to 'current state' and to_state_id/to_description correspond to 'target state.' This is helpful but not substantial enough to exceed the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Trace historical pathways from current state to a target state or state matching description.' It uses a specific verb ('trace') and identifies the resource ('historical pathways' between UI states). This distinguishes it from siblings like compare_states (which compares two states) or get_session_context (which retrieves session context).

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 clear context for when to use the tool: finding a path from a current state to a target state, either by ID or description. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary criteria (e.g., when to use predict_next_action or export_visual_trajectories instead). Thus it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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