tv_goto

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses safety bounds (maxSteps, deadline) and two specific structural stop conditions (focus not moving, focus wrapping to a previously visited position). It does not describe failure/return semantics, which is a minor gap, but the core runtime behavior is transparent.

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?

Three tight sentences: the first states purpose, the second lists stopping safeguards, and the third gives usage guidance. No filler, information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, but the description plus schema explain what the tool does, how it stops, and when to use it. The only notable gap is lack of explicit return/failure behavior, but the core navigation semantics are well covered.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage with meaningful descriptions (target types, defaults, allowed directions). The description adds contextual use information but no new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: pressing a direction repeatedly until the focused element matches a target (text/CSS selector/testid). It distinguishes itself from sibling tv_press by emphasizing repeated conditional navigation rather than a single fixed press, and the 'use this instead' phrasing makes its unique role obvious.

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 recommends using this tool instead of guessing a fixed number of presses, which is actionable guidance for when to choose it. It does not enumerate all alternative sibling tools or explicit when-not cases, but the context is clear enough for an agent to make a reasonable choice.

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