browser_navigate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently notes that navigation does not block on load, and that auto-guard verifies readyState. It also mentions return of post.perception.status. No contradictions.

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 sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, parameter usage, and caveats. No superfluous words. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, key parameters, important caveats, and return value hint. It is complete enough for an agent to understand how to use the tool correctly. Could mention waitForLoad/loadTimeoutMs briefly, but schema covers them.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context for tabId+port and lensId, but does not detail other parameters like narrate or include. The schema itself is descriptive, so the description provides marginal additional value.

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: 'Navigate a browser tab to a URL via CDP Page.navigate.' It distinguishes from clicking the address bar and aligns with the tool name. No confusion with sibling tools like browser_click or browser_open.

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 practical guidance: 'Pass tabId+port so the server auto-guards' and 'Caveats: Does not block until page load complete — follow with wait_until(element_matches) or repeated browser_eval polling.' This helps users understand when to chain other tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like browser_open.

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