navigate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the single most important behavioral fact: navigation revokes the grant and the user must re-grant. That is exactly the kind of hidden side effect an agent needs. It still omits failure behavior, return value, and whether the revocation happens before or after the load completes.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the action is front-loaded and the critical side effect follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key hazard but leaves out what happens on failure, what the tool returns, and how the agent should recover after the grant is revoked. Enough to call it, not enough to handle it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for both parameters — url is constrained to HTTP(S) and tabId refers to a granted tab — but gives no format details, ID source, or error semantics for either.

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?

States a specific verb (Navigate) and resource (granted tab to HTTP(S) URL), which is enough to tell it apart from read_page, click, and type in the sibling set. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the action is 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?

'granted tab' implies the prerequisite that the tab must already hold a grant, and the URL scheme restriction scopes valid input. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings like read_page or click, nor what to do if the grant is absent — usage is only implied.

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