打开页面

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions that real network requests are made, the page is rendered, and the target site must allow automation. It also explains the active-tab behavior and auto-new-tab fallback, providing meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the core action and tab behavior, the second explains wait strategy usage and the permission caveat. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with only three parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the essential context: what it does, how it behaves, and a critical permission note. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional information.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking wait_until to concrete scenarios (single-page app rendering, network completion), which enriches the schema's enum definitions without merely repeating them.

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 navigates the active tab to a specified URL, auto-creating a new tab if none exists. This distinguishes it from sibling navigation tools like web_back, web_forward, and web_refresh, which operate on history or reload rather than arbitrary URL entry.

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 notes the use of wait_until strategies for scenarios like SPA rendering or waiting for all network requests to finish, giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools to exclude, stopping short of the highest bar.

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