Preview safe Jev navigation

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: it launches a 'fresh browser profile', restricts to 'public HTTPS page', and previews only 'one same-origin, query-free link'. These are meaningful constraints not present in the annotations, enhancing transparency about side effects and scoping.

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 precise sentences front-load the core action and the critical non-execution behavior. There is zero fluff; every clause adds essential information. The structure is ideal for quick parsing by an agent.

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 read-only tool, the description covers the primary behaviors and constraints. It does not describe the return value or expected output format, but since no output schema exists, this is a minor gap. The 'fresh browser profile' and 'never executes' details give a solid picture of what the agent needs to know to call it correctly.

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 already describes both parameters (url and goal) with 100% coverage. The description adds some context by explaining how they are used ('ask Jev to preview one... link' guided by goal), but it does not significantly expand on format, constraints, or interaction beyond what the schema provides. The description's mention of 'same-origin, query-free' is an operation-level constraint rather than parameter-level detail.

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 identifies the action ('Open a public HTTPS page... ask Jev to preview') and the exact resource ('one same-origin, query-free link'). It explicitly states 'never executes the proposed navigation', which differentiates it from the sibling tool jev_guard_execute. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context: this tool previews a link without executing it, implying it should be used when a safe, non-committing check is needed. It does not explicitly name jev_guard_execute or jev_guard_cancel as alternatives, but the contrast with 'never executes' is strong enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case. Lacks explicit exclusion or alternative routing.

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