workspace_navigate

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the intended action without mentioning error behavior, side effects (e.g., changing selection or focus), prerequisites, or return values. For a tool that likely triggers a UI action, this is insufficient.

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 description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a one-line args note. It is front-loaded with the action and includes no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 single-parameter navigation tool, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meaning but omits operational details like error handling, return values, or what happens when the target is invalid. Given there is no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context would improve 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?

The description defines the single parameter target as 'Object path or {guid},' which adds a format hint not present in the input schema. However, with 0% schema coverage, the description does not fully compensate: it lacks examples, path syntax, or clarifications of accepted object types.

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 a specific action ('Open an object') and the context ('in the relevant editor'), naming example editors like 'event editor, mixer.' This distinguishes it from sibling workspace tools (info, browser, selection) that focus on queries or other operations.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'open' and the descriptor 'relevant editor.' There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like workspace_browser_current or workspace_editor_selection, nor any exclusion criteria.

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