playwright_navigate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose useful behavior: returns page title/status code and degrades when Playwright is unavailable. However, it does not mention load-wait behavior, error handling for unreachable URLs, or whether the navigation can trigger side effects.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the action and output, followed by a relevant fallback note. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core behavior and return values. It could be slightly more complete by describing the return format or timeout behavior, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'url' is already described as '目标 URL'. The tool description adds no additional format, validation, or usage details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('打开 URL' – open URL) and the concrete outputs it returns (page title/status code). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like playwright_click, playwright_screenshot, and playwright_assert, which perform different browser actions.

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?

Usage is implied by the term '浏览器导航' and the description of opening a URL and returning title/status. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over the other Playwright siblings, nor any exclusions or alternative conditions.

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