sherweb_navigate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states this is a read-only help/discovery aid returning tool names and descriptions, and clarifies it has no side effects or prerequisite status. The behavioral information is reasonably transparent for a discovery tool, though it doesn't specify exactly what the return format looks like or whether it makes external network calls.

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 sentences, zero waste. The description front-loads the purpose, then immediately addresses the critical 'is this a prerequisite?' question that agents commonly stumble on. 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?

This is a simple discovery tool with one enum-constrained parameter. The schema fully documents the parameter, and the description explains the tool's role and non-prerequisite nature. There's no output schema, and for a discovery tool the return value (tool names + descriptions) is self-evident from the description. Nothing material is missing.

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 100% with the domain enum fully documented in the schema. The schema's enum descriptions (billing, customers, subscriptions, catalog) each explain what that domain covers. However, the description adds marginal value by framing the tool's role as discovery for each domain — a small but useful addition clarifying what exploring each domain yields.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Discover available Sherweb tools by domain' with specific verb+resource (explore/discover tools). It distinguishes itself from the operational sibling tools by clarifying it's a discovery/navigation aid, not a data operation. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, though the intent is clear.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('Discover available Sherweb tools by domain') and critically clarifies what it is NOT: 'All tools are callable at any time — this is a help/discovery aid, not a prerequisite.' This explicitly tells the agent that this tool need not be called before others, providing clear usage guidance and avoiding the common pitfall of treating navigation as a prerequisite step.

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