pcb_navigate_to

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the coordinate frame convention (+X rightward, +Y upward, relative to canvas origin) and the mil unit system, which materially affects correct invocation.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste: purpose first, then the coordinate convention, then the routing to related tools. Front-loaded and every sentence 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?

No output schema exists, but this is a viewport navigation action with no meaningful return value, so that is not a gap. Units, coordinate frame, and related tools are covered; the document auto-switch and multi-instance selection behavior is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but slightly limits completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by specifying that x/y are in mil relative to the canvas origin and that widths/diameters use the same unit — meaning the schema's terse 'X coordinate to navigate to' does not already convey.

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?

States a specific verb (navigate) and resource (PCB editor viewport) plus the target (specific coordinates), so the agent knows exactly what happens. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like pcb_navigate_to_region or pcb_zoom_to_board, which an agent choosing among viewport tools would want.

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 points to pcb_canvas_origin and pcb_convert_coordinates, but only as supporting tools for coordinate handling — not as alternatives for a different task. There is no statement of when to use this versus pcb_navigate_to_region or pcb_zoom_to_board, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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