browser_goto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call replaces the current page in the existing tab and that blocked sites are refused, but it says nothing about permissions, expected failure modes, or how wait_css/wait_text affect completion.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and tab scope front-loaded. The blocked-site caveat follows efficiently.

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?

For a four-parameter navigation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the primary behavior but leaves gaps around failure behavior, wait semantics, and how the tab identifier relates to browser_open. It is adequate but not complete.

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 75%, with tab, wait_css, and wait_text documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and the undocumented url parameter is only implicitly explained by 'Go to a URL'.

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 states a specific action (navigate to a URL) and scopes it to the same tab/episode, which differentiates it from siblings like browser_open and browser_tabs. It does not explicitly name browser_open as the alternative, so the distinction relies on the agent knowing what 'same tab' implies.

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 phrase 'same tab (same episode)' implies this is for navigating within an existing browser context rather than opening a new one, but no alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use guidance is given. The blocked-sites note is a constraint, not usage guidance.

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