browser_go

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses return values (page title, JS dialog messages) and the prerequisite, but does not cover failure modes (e.g., timeouts, invalid URLs) or side effects (e.g., browser history). It adds some useful context but is not exhaustive.

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 well-structured and efficient: a one-sentence purpose, a clear prerequisite callout, an SPA tip, and a concise Args list. Every sentence earns its place without verbosity.

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 description covers all parameters, prerequisites, and a common use case (SPAs). An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values further. It is complete for the tool's complexity, though it could mention error handling or edge cases.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates with an Args section that explains every parameter, including examples, defaults, and optionality. For instance, it specifies that wait_for is for SPAs and that tab_id uses the active tab if omitted, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 verb+resource: 'Navigate to a URL and wait for the page to load.' It distinguishes from siblings like browser_back (navigate back) and browser_open (open a session) by specifying the navigation action and return values.

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 a prerequisite ('PREREQUISITE: browser_open must have been called first') and provides guidance for when to use the wait_for parameter (SPAs that load content dynamically). This gives clear context on when and how to use the tool.

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