list_nav_regions

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior itself. 'List' weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state the return format, scope, filtering behavior, or any side effects, which is insufficient behavioral transparency.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words and is easy to scan. However, it is slightly under-specified, omitting the optional filtering capability, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse: it does not explain what the returned list contains (node names, paths, or full objects), whether it covers the current scene or all scenes, or how the optional scene_path parameter affects results. This leaves a common list operation ambiguous.

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 schema already documents the only parameter 'scene_path' as 'Filter to a specific scene' with 100% coverage, so the description need not add parameter details. The description does not enrich beyond the schema but meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 action 'List' and the resource 'NavigationRegion nodes', making the tool's basic purpose obvious. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like 'read_nav_region' or 'list_scenes', so it stops short of the top score.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as 'read_nav_region' or 'list_scenes'. The description merely restates the purpose, leaving the agent without usage context or exclusions.

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