get_navigation_info

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the burden. 'List' strongly indicates a non-destructive operation, and it details what will be returned (settings, layers). However, it doesn't explicitly mention side-effect absence or error behavior, but for a listing tool this is sufficient.

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?

A single sentence with no redundant words, front-loaded with the verb, and structured to enumerate all the items included. Every part earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what is returned. It does list the categories (regions, agents, settings, layers) sufficiently. Some ambiguity remains about output structure, but for a straightforward listing tool this is adequate.

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 has one parameter (node_path) with 0% description coverage. The description partially compensates by saying 'under a node', clarifying that node_path is the target for the listing. However, it doesn't specify path format or traversal semantics, so it only partially adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 'List' and clearly specifies the resources: navigation regions, agents with their settings, and named navigation layers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like setup_navigation_region or bake_navigation_mesh, which modify rather than inspect.

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 read-only nature is clear from 'List', implying use when you need to inspect navigation setup. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context among sibling mutation tools makes the intended usage obvious.

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