open-page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a viewport/browser context via 'position viewport at line lineno', which is a useful hint, but it says nothing about side effects, whether navigation replaces the current page, or any permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action, target, and the optional lineno behavior are all stated compactly.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the mechanics adequately. However, it omits the provenance of ref_id and its relationship to sibling page-navigation tools, which an agent needs to invoke it correctly in sequence.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the same semantics (ref_id as URL/reference, lineno as viewport target) without adding format details such as whether ref_id must be a search-result handle.

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 verb ('Open') and resource ('the page indicated by ref_id or URL') and adds the viewport-positioning behavior, so an agent knows exactly what action is taken. It stops short of distinguishing this from siblings like 'fetch' or 'click-link', which could plausibly also retrieve page content.

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?

There is no indication of when to prefer this over 'fetch', 'web-search', or 'click-link', nor any prerequisites (e.g. that ref_id typically comes from a prior search). Usage context is left entirely to inference.

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