navigate_to

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the 'new_tab' parameter behavior ('does not auto-switch to new tab'), which isn't obvious from the schema alone. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error conditions, or what happens if navigation fails, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded in a single sentence, with zero wasted words. Every part ('Navigate to URL in current tab or new tab' and 'does not auto-switch to new tab') adds critical information about the tool's functionality and behavior.

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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and moderate complexity with 3 parameters, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core action and key behavioral nuance, though it could benefit from more details on error handling or prerequisites for a navigation tool.

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 description adds meaningful context for the 'new_tab' parameter by explaining its behavioral effect ('does not auto-switch to new tab'), which goes beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. It doesn't detail 'session_id' or 'url' parameters, but with 3 parameters total, this partial compensation earns a score above the baseline.

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 specific action ('Navigate to URL') and resource (browser tab), distinguishing it from siblings like 'navigate_back' or 'navigate_forward' by specifying navigation to a new URL rather than history navigation. It also differentiates from 'switch_tab' by focusing on URL navigation rather than tab switching.

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 provides clear context for usage by specifying 'in current tab or new tab' and noting that it 'does not auto-switch to new tab,' which helps understand when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'switch_tab' for tab management. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternative tools for different scenarios.

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