read_nav_obstacle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal what the tool returns (e.g., list of nodes, properties), whether it throws errors for missing nodes, or how it handles the optional obstacle_name. This lack of detail makes runtime behavior unpredictable for the agent.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices behavioral detail for brevity.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and edge cases. It fails to mention whether obstacle_name is optional (though the schema marks it not required), what happens if no nodes are found, or the format of returned data. For a read tool with a file path parameter, this is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; the phrase 'across scenes' hints at the role of scene_path but does not clarify optionality or filtering behavior beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 it reads NavigationObstacle nodes, with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('NavigationObstacle nodes'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_nav_agent and read_nav_region by naming the exact node type. Though 'across scenes' is slightly ambiguous, it implies the tool can operate on different scene files via the scene_path parameter.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of exclusions, and no stated prerequisites. The single sentence merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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