read_nav_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Read' and 'across scenes' but does not describe whether all agents are enumerated, what happens when no agent is found, whether there are any side effects, or what the return structure looks like.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states action, target, and scope, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the agent needs more information about return values and edge cases. The description does not explain what properties are included, how multiple agents across scenes are aggregated, or what happens if the scene path is invalid. This leaves a significant gap for a tool that reads 'across scenes'.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters, and coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'across scenes', which is consistent with the scene_path parameter. It does not clarify the optionality or semantics of agent_name beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('NavigationAgent properties') with a scope ('across scenes'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_nav_obstacle and read_nav_region. However, it does not specify which properties are read or how results are returned, preventing a perfect 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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_nav_region, read_nav_obstacle, or read_scene. It also does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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