cw_navigate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It offers one useful trait (results may be a readable dialog or an unconfirmable drawn change), but says nothing about mutability, undo, permissions, or what individual commands do. For a 19-command dispatcher this is a major gap.

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 category is front-loaded, but the middle is a 19-item pipe-delimited list that duplicates the enum and is hard to scan. Grouping commands by type or omitting the redundant enumeration would make it tighter.

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 broad dispatcher with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not explain return values, confirm flow, side effects per command, or failure modes. The single sentence about dialogs and unconfirmable changes is a start but far from sufficient.

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 only 50%: confirm is documented in the schema, but the command enum values have no per-value semantics. The description repeats the command names without explaining what any of them do or what arguments they might need, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema detail.

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 first clause names the domain (selection, navigation, marker commands), and the 19 command names make the scope concrete. However, the description is essentially a restatement of the command enum and does not differentiate this dispatcher from siblings like cw_markers, cw_locate, or cw_view_commands, which likely overlap.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no explanation of which command fits which situation. The confirm parameter's role is only in the schema, and the description gives no hint about prerequisites or sequencing.

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