navigate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses one specific behavior: 'deps returns code calls plus web template/style/component links when present.' However, it does not explain the behavior of other actions, return formats, whether navigation is stateful, or any side effects. This is a minimal but not comprehensive disclosure.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that state the core purpose and then list actions with a specific behavioral note about deps. There is zero redundant or filler content, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what each action returns or how parameters map to actions (beyond the schema's brief field descriptions). It lacks critical context like example usage, error handling, or the nature of the project graph. The schema covers parameter names but not the overall behavior, leaving the description insufficient for a multi-action tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself only lists the action enum values and does not add meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It repeats the action list but provides no additional parameter context or usage examples.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Navigate the project graph' and enumerates five concrete actions (expand, deps, usages, call_chain, sub_projects). This provides a clear picture of the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like graph_metadata or analyze.

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 lists possible actions but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools or when to use each action. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The action names imply some usage, but the description lacks explicit context for tool selection.

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