open_url

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 states the action but doesn't disclose potential side effects like page reload, error handling on invalid paths, authentication requirements, or whether it waits for page load. For a navigation tool, these are relevant behavioral details. The description is too thin on what happens after navigation and on failure.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action and examples are front-loaded, and the note about subsequent tools is concise and relevant. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the essential purpose, gives usage context, and hints at the interaction flow. It lacks details on edge cases (e.g., invalid path, network issues), but for a simple navigation tool this is adequate. A 4 reflects that it is complete for typical use, not exhaustive.

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 only defines 'path' as a string with no description (coverage 0%). The tool description compensates by providing concrete examples ('/wms/reception' for kiosk, '/web' to return), which clarifies the expected format and meaning. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 action (navigate), the resource (URL path on the connected Odoo host), and provides concrete examples. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from element-interaction tools by noting that plain HTML pages are then driven via get_elements / set_field / click_button, making its role as a navigation step obvious among siblings.

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 gives examples of when to use it (kiosk page, web client) and implies it is a prerequisite for subsequent interaction tools. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like open_menu, but the navigation-focused wording makes the intended usage clear. A bit more explicitness about avoiding it for menu-based navigation would push it to 5.

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