navigate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals that refs become stale after reload, that the tool waits for settle, that it overwrites the user's active tab, and that the first call per session is redirected to virtual_desk. These are meaningful side effects an agent must know before calling.

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 sentences long with no filler. The main action is stated first, followed by high-value caveats about stale refs, waiting behavior, and the active-tab overwrite. 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 the moderate complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a strong set of operational details: what it does, when it redirects, and what side effects occur. It does not mention return values or error behavior, but those are not essential for a navigation action and the schema covers the invocation details.

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 covers the parameters at 100%, including the enum values, the default action, and the meaning of settle_ms. The description adds little beyond emphasizing the back/reload actions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate: the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not conflict with it.

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 a specific action and resource: navigating the active tab to a URL, plus the supported 'back' and 'reload' actions. It further distinguishes itself by noting that it overwrites the active tab and that the first call is redirected to virtual_desk, which prevents confusion with sibling tools.

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 practical context about when to use the tool: it explicitly tells the agent to check virtual_desk first and warns that the first call per session is redirected there. It does not spell out a complete set of when-to-use versus when-not-to-use comparisons against all siblings, but the most important alternative is addressed.

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