get_navigation_point

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does not meet it. It never says whether a point off the mesh errors or is clamped, whether results are cached, whether this is a pure read, or what the response looks like beyond the vague phrase 'height and area'.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Its brevity is close to over-compression rather than verbosity, so the size itself is fine even though content is thin.

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 four-required-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description does too little. The return contract ('height and area'), coordinate conventions, and off-mesh behavior are all unstated.

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 only 25% — session_id is documented in the schema, while x, y and z are bare numbers. The description mentions a 'world point' but never clarifies coordinate units, which axis is up, or why y is required alongside z, leaving three of four parameters to guesswork.

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 gives a specific verb pair (project, read) and a concrete resource (a world point onto the walkable ground mesh), which is far more informative than the tool name alone. It falls short of a 5 because 'read its height and area' is ambiguous — it never says whose area or in what units — and it does not differentiate itself from terrain/map siblings such as get_terrain_grid or get_map_info.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this instead of get_terrain_grid, get_map_info, or get_navigation_point's neighbors, and no preconditions are given. The only implicit cue is 'walkable ground mesh', which hints at surface-height queries but never routes the agent anywhere.

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