covidence_nav

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait — the tool returns instructions rather than performing side effects — which is important because its action names (login, cast_vote) could imply direct execution. However, it says nothing about prerequisites (e.g., needing to be logged in first), whether instructions vary based on parameter combinations, or what form the output takes beyond 'plain-English.'

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?

Two efficient sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides the consumer context and the action list. The action enumeration slightly duplicates the schema enum, but it is useful for quick scanning and earns its place. No filler or vague abstraction like 'navigate Covidence workflows.'

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 relatively simple instruction-retrieval tool, the description is reasonably complete: it identifies the output type (plain-English navigation instructions), the consumer (Claude driving Chrome), and the full action catalog. No output schema exists, so the description's mention of the return format is sufficient. Remaining gaps — which actions depend on which optional parameters — are adequately covered by the input schema itself.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents decision, review_id, and batch_size with their per-action requirements. The description adds value primarily by enumerating valid actions in prose, which reinforces the action enum but adds little beyond it. It does not clarify relationships such as which actions require review_id versus which ignore it — the schema's brief 'Required for...' notes carry that weight.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get plain-English navigation instructions for a specific Covidence action') and lists the full action set. The phrase 'Claude uses these instructions to drive Chrome tools' distinguishes it from sibling tools like covidence_login and covidence_log_vote, which appear to perform actions directly rather than provide navigation guidance.

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 the usage context ('Claude uses these instructions to drive Chrome tools') — an agent can infer this is a pre-step before driving the browser. However, it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling action tools or states when to call this instead of covidence_login or covidence_log_vote. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so the routing logic is left to inference.

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